Assumptions Behind Grammatical Approaches To Code‐Switching: When The Blueprint Is A Red Herring

Abstract

Many of the so-called 'grammars' of code-switching are based on various underlying assumptions, e.g. that informal speech can be adequately or appropriately described in terms of ''grammar''; that deep, rather than surface, structures are involved in code-switching; that one 'language' is the 'base' or 'matrix'; and that constraints derived from existing data are universal and predictive. We question these assumptions on several grounds. First, 'grammar' is arguably distinct from the processes driving speech production. Second, the role of grammar is mediated by the variable, poly-idiolectal repertoires of bilingual speakers. Third, in many instances of CS the notion of a 'base' system is either irrelevant, or fails to explain the facts. Fourth, sociolinguistic factors frequently override 'grammatical' factors, as evidence from the same language pairs in different settings has shown. No principles proposed to date account for all the facts, and it seems unlikely that 'grammar', as conventionally conceived, can provide definitive answers. We conclude that rather than seeking universal, predictive grammatical rules, research on CS should focus on the variability of bilingual grammars.

Myths and facts about loanword development

“…They also confirm the feasibility-and more important, the necessity!-of distinguishing them, not from other borrowings, as they are identical to them in linguistic structure, but from code-switches, single-and multiword. This necessity does not emerge from any theory-internal considerations, as alleged by, for example, Bentahila and Davies (1998), Clyne (2003), Eliasson (1989), Gardner-Chloros andEdwards (2004), Jacobson, (1998), Muysken (2000), Nishimura (1995), and Santorini and Mahootian (1995), but from the simple fact that these are different strategies, with different underlying structures, and generated by different grammars.…”

Introducing the Special Issue: Mixed Verbs and Linguistic Creativity in Bi/Multilingual Communities

“…In the formal study of intra-sentential CS, linguistic creativity has not played a prominent role given that for most scholars, CS primarily entails the combination of two autonomous grammatical systems that remain discrete in bilingual speech (for relevant discussion, see Gardner-Chloros and Edwards [3]). This suggests that CS is restricted to pre-existing structures and/or patterns in the component languages, and any degree of hybridity is envisioned as indexical of convergence.…”

“…We were initially drawn to the study of these mixed verb constructions as they allow us to examine not only how bi/multilinguals seamlessly integrate their languages but how they creatively abstract away from pre-existing structures and/or patterns to devise novel ones. We know that a distinctive characteristic of mixed verbs is that they often evince structural features that cannot be easily attributed to one language or another; hence, revealing the flexibility, dynamism, and creativity of CS [3,[8][9][10].…”

Code Switching: Linguistic

“…As of this writing, however, not only is there no general consensus on what linguistic conditions constrain CS, but some scholars insist that the very search for them is futile (e.g., Bokamba, 1989;Gardner-Chloros and Edwards, 2004); others maintain that there are none (Chan, 2009;MacSwan, 1999;Mahootian, 1993), and still others, that constraints on CS may vary from one community to another (Bhatt, 1997;Muysken, 2000;Schindler et al, 2008).…”

“…For example, blind adherence to Occam's razor (e.g., Chan, 2009;MacSwan, 1999) and the quest for a 'unified account' (Gardner-Chloros, 2009;Myers Scotton, 2006;Winford, 2009) enjoin us to ignore fundamental differences among different manifestations of language contact, and to treat them allat our peril!as one and the same. Section A 'Grammar' of CS detailed the tradition of appealing to the syntactic theories currently in vogue as models for CS behavior.…”