grammatical constraints and motivations for - University of the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Muysken (2000: 1) also opts to use code-mixing to refer to “…all cases where lexical items and grammatical features from two languages appear in one sentence.” Further, Muysken (2000: 4) argues that “switching is only an appropriate term for the alternational type of mixing (and) as a term it already suggests something like alternation (as opposed to insertion).” Mc Clure (cited in Pfaff, 1997: 344) distinguishes between code-changing and code-mixing, arguing that code-changing refers to “…alternation at a major constituent…” while the term code-mixing is “…used for sentence-internal, usually constituent-internal use of other language lexical items (words or idioms) which are not borrowed in the community.” For the purpose of this research, the term codeswitching is used to refer to the use of two linguistic varieties (languages or dialects) in an utterance, or the use of both grammatical and lexical items from two different languages in a single utterance, produced by a bilingual speaker. 2.2 Explanations of how Codeswitching occurs According to Poplack (1990) (cited in Hamers & Blanc, 2000) three types of switching can occur. Extra-sentential codeswitching (also called tag insertion) involves the insertion of a tag from one language into an utterance which is entirely in another language. Intersentential switching occurs between clauses or sentence boundaries. In such cases an entire clause or sentence in one language is followed by a clause or sentence in another language. The third kind of codeswitching occurs within either a clause or a word boundary and is referred to as intrasentential codeswitching. The majority of studies on codeswitching and its constraints have focused on intrasentential codeswitching. Muysken (1995) initially proposed two ways in which such switching could occur. He argued that codeswitching could either be insertional or alternational. According to the insertional approach, 32
“…codeswitching is a form of borrowing, the difference between them being the size and the type of element being inserted (e.g. a single lexical element in borrowing, a whole phrase or clause in codeswitching.” (Muysken, 1995: 260) This is the type of approach Myers-Scotton (1993b, 2006a) takes to explain codeswitching in terms of her Matrix Language Framework. Under this view, one language is the dominant one (matrix language) into which elements from the less dominant (embedded language) are inserted. The alternational approach is distinctly why Muysken (1995: 260-261) distinguishes between codeswitching and code-mixing, viewing the two as completely different processes. Alternation is “…clearly exemplified in intersentential codeswitching (and is) likely when there are long stretches of elements from the second language, or when several elements are switched, which do not form a single constituent.” Muysken (2000: 5) later developed a third approach to codeswitching, explaining it in terms of congruent lexicalization. In this case “…there is a largely (but not necessarily completely) shared structure, lexicalized by elements from either language” as is the case with homophonous diamorphs. Poplack (1993) (cited in Muysken, 2000) has identified four kinds of mixing which include codeswitching under equivalence, nonce borrowing, constituentinsertion, and flagged switching. Based on Poplack’s (1993) definition of codeswitching – the juxtaposition of sentences or sentence fragments, each of which is internally consistent with the morphological and syntactic rules of the language of its provenance- Muysken (2000) argues that this view embodies the alternational approach. On the contrary, Muysken (2000) argues that Myers-Scotton’s (1993a: 4) definition of codeswitching as “… the selection of forms from an embedded language (or languages) in utterances of a matrix language during the same conversation” – embodies an insertional approach. Myers-Scotton (1993a, 2006a) 33
Page 1 and 2: GRAMMATICAL CONSTRAINTS AND MOTIVAT
Page 3 and 4: Abstract GRAMMATICAL CONSTRAINTS AN
Page 5 and 6: Declaration I declare that Grammati
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Key words .......
Page 9 and 10: 1.0 Introduction Chapter 1 Backgrou
Page 11 and 12: English is not the mother tongue of
Page 13 and 14: everyday communication. The nature
Page 15 and 16: While researchers and sociolinguist
Page 17 and 18: language of the court, education, a
Page 19 and 20: This, then, makes it apparent why C
Page 21 and 22: have always been exposed simultaneo
Page 23 and 24: ) I have eaten an apple. The past t
Page 25 and 26: also instances in which they do not
Page 27 and 28: providing a strong argument that co
Page 29 and 30: 1.10 Outline of the Study Chapter 1
Page 31: 2.0 Introduction Chapter 2 Social M
Page 35 and 36: In this section, I attempt to provi
Page 37 and 38: eferred to as RO) sets between part
Page 39 and 40: example, Afrikaans speakers may swi
Page 41 and 42: Further, Franceschini (1998: 62) st
Page 43 and 44: context in which the speaker finds
Page 45 and 46: 3.0 Introduction Chapter 3 Grammati
Page 47 and 48: codeswitching as they do reflect th
Page 49 and 50: Constituent insertion differs from
Page 51 and 52: In these examples, the main verbs a
Page 53 and 54: 4.0 Introduction Chapter 4 Research
Page 55 and 56: Thus, qualitative research is an in
Page 57 and 58: However, contrary to Auer’s 1984
Page 59 and 60: The transcripts were then analyzed
Page 61 and 62: 5.0 Introduction Chapter 5 Discussi
Page 63 and 64: Turn Phrase Table 1: Switched conju
Page 65 and 66: In turns 22, 53, 59 and 63, English
Page 67 and 68: Unlike in English, when the past te
Page 69 and 70: similarity to that of Afrikaans due
Page 71 and 72: Table 7: Afrikaans determiners with
Page 73 and 74: possessive. However, it appears as
Page 75 and 76: indefinite articles, ‘a’ or ‘
Page 77 and 78: The following are examples from the
Page 79 and 80: Turn Mixed verb Afrikaans equivalen
Page 81 and 82: In turns 421 and 532, the host subs
Page 83 and 84:
the violation of this constraint, p
Page 85 and 86:
nouns) are used. I have selected a
Page 87 and 88:
What follows are a few switches to
Page 89 and 90:
The next switch is the insertion of
Page 91 and 92:
has chosen to split the phrase into
Page 93 and 94:
The discourse suggests that the hos
Page 95 and 96:
speaker’s close association with
Page 97 and 98:
The next, and final, switch is to A
Page 99 and 100:
of proceedings throughout the show.
Page 101 and 102:
host is being somewhat sarcastic, b
Page 103 and 104:
also of the ways in which language
Page 105 and 106:
6.0 Introduction Chapter 6 Conclusi
Page 107 and 108:
• While conjunctions do agree wit
Page 109 and 110:
References Appel, R & Muysken, P. (
Page 111 and 112:
Hamers, J. & Blanc, M. (2000). Bili
Page 113 and 114:
Ponelis, F. (1993). The Development
Page 115 and 116:
Young, D. (1988). Bilingualism and
Page 117 and 118:
APPENDIX
Page 119 and 120:
First Transcript: Update Kaapse Vla
Page 121 and 122:
52. Clarence: Wilfred? 53. Suster:
Page 123 and 124:
[laughter] 62. Clarence: Die’s (d
Page 125 and 126:
terrace and so I couldn’t go up t
Page 127 and 128:
{So he got an sms back} to say, “
Page 129 and 130:
then you go from Notre-Dame up the
Page 131 and 132:
201. Suster: Yes Clarence, it’s,
Page 133 and 134:
258. Suster Ja {Yes}, my introducti
Page 135 and 136:
322. Suster = = Nou {Now}, Clarence
Page 137 and 138:
376. Suster Will do. Thank you my s
Page 139 and 140:
a short while. Music followed by ad
Page 141 and 142:
ecause … did I really say that, y
Page 143 and 144:
speaker}. En toe stoot hy nou die m
Page 145 and 146:
627. Suster [laughter] 628. Caller
Page 147 and 148:
699. Caller 13 Yes, uh, I know that
Page 149 and 150:
when I say that you do not have a,
Page 151 and 152:
853. Caller 16 = = maar jy en Clare
Page 153 and 154:
for} innerly = = 897. Suster = = ja
Page 155 and 156:
975. Caller 19 Hello Suster. 976. S
show all

grammatical constraints and motivations for - University of the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?