CODESWITCHING:

A lecture delivered @ Department

of English, UG, 13th April, 2018

DR. EVERSHED KWASI AMUZU

2 INTRODUCTION

 Before we attempt a definition / characterization of “Codeswitching”,

let’s note that as an area of study it belongs to the sub-field of
Sociolinguistics (specifically Contact Linguistics) in which scholars are
interested in language alternation.
 Language alternation, as the term implies, is the interchangeable use of
two or more languages in a given conversation, utterance, or sentence.
 Language alternation therefore involves the presence of linguistic
material from two or more languages in a conversation, utterance, or
sentence.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

3 Examples of language alternation

Ewe/English:
(1) Dɔ nye wu-m but I can’t eat.
‘I am hungry but I can’t eat.’

Akan/English
(2) Wo kid ne obi ne child â-ɔ-wɔ abrokyire wɔ the same
date of birth...
‘Your child and another person’s child who lives abroad have the
same date of birth...’
E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18
4 The BIG question in language alternation research

 How should speech showing the presence of material from two or more
languages be analyzed?
 The answer depends on the researcher’s theoretical persuasion.
 We can talk about at least four perspectives, associated with the following:
 Peter Auer
 Shona Poplack
 Carol Myers-Scotton
 Pierter Muysken

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

5 Peter Auer

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

6 Shona Poplack

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

7 Carol Myers-Scotton

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

8 Pierter Muysken

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

9 Our characterization of language alternation

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

10
 It is with OUR kind of distinction in mind that it is said that whereas
Lexical Borrowing is a feature of langue, Codeswitching is a feature
of parole.
 It is also with our kind of distinction in mind that it is said that
whereas bilingualism is a prerequisite for Codeswitching, it is not a
prerequisite for Lexical Borrowing.
 All this explains the nature of the relationship between
Codeswitching and Lexical Borrowing:
Today’s Codeswitches are tomorrow’s
(established) Lexical Borrowings.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

11 Still, there is ongoing debate about what
constitutes lexical borrowing and what constitutes
codeswitching
 Agreed criteria for differentiating them have not been reliable cross-linguistically.
 One such is phonological adaptation
 However, while
1. some LBs keep their phonological shape in the borrowing/recipient
language (e.g. pen, pencil in most Ghanaian languages)
2. some codeswitches are phonologically adapted as though they are already
LBs (e.g. verbs in Akan-English CS)

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

12 Codeswitching in West Africa
 No coincidences in the kinds of languages speakers may switch during bilingual interactions.
CS involving 2 languages (bilingual CS)

Socio-politically weaker Socio-politically more powerful

language language
Language of grammar language that may supply single /
phrasal insertions
e.g. Ewe/Akan and English
Logba/Kabiye and Ewe
Erushu and Yoruba
Ewe and Akan (in e.g. settlements in Koforidua)

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

13

CS involving 3 languages (trilingual CS)

Minority Majority language/ Official language

Language local language of
geographical mobility

Language of language which may language which may supply insertions

Grammar, e.g. supply insertions, e.g. e.g.
Logba/Kabiye Ewe English/French
Erushu Yoruba English

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

14 Research on codeswitching worldwide

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

15 Sociolinguistic Approaches

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

16 Markedness Model
 The key theoretical concept that underpins the model is ‘markedness’ understood here as
synonymous with the concept of ‘indexicality’.
 Linguistic varieties are assumed to be always socially indexical, i.e., through accumulated
use in particular social relations, linguistic varieties come to index or invoke those
relations (also called rights-and-obligation sets / RO sets), taking on an air of natural
association (Myers-Scotton 1993: 85).
 A language that is expected to be used in a given speech situation, i.e. the unmarked code
choice for that situation, would be indexical of the normal/default social relations that
obtain between the speaker and his/her hearer(s). In other words, the unmarked code would
invoke the default social relations among interlocutors.
 A language that is not the usual language of interaction in a given type of speech situation,
i.e. a marked code choice for the occasion, would invoke / suggest a change in the social
relations that obtain between interlocutors.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

17 Specifics of the Markedness Model

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

18
 The Negotiation Principle: Choose the form of your conversation such
that it indexes the set of rights and obligations which you wish to be in
force between you and addressee for the current exchange.
 The unmarked-choice maxim: “Make your code choice the unmarked
index of the unmarked RO set in talk exchanges when you wish to
establish or affirm that RO set”.
 The marked-choice maxim: “Make a marked code choice which is not
the unmarked index of the unmarked RO set in an interaction when you
wish to establish a new RO set as unmarked for the current exchange”.
 Exploratory-choice maxim: “When an unmarked choice is not clear, use
CS to make alternate exploratory choices as candidates for an unmarked
choice and thereby as an index of an RO set which you favour”.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

19 Unmarked code choice

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

20 Marked code choice

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

21 CA Approach
 A key issue in conversation analysis is the view of ordinary conversation
as the most basic form of talk because it is the main means by which
people come together to exchange information, and to negotiate and
maintain social relations.
 Therefore, for conversation analysts, conversational data is the primary
source of sociolinguistic information.
 They look at conversations as a linear ongoing event that unfolds little
by little and implies the negotiation of cooperation between speakers
along the way.
 That is to say that for conversation analysts, text is context; they focus on
the sequential progression of interactions, and the way that each utterance
is shaped by the previous text and shapes the following text.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

22

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

23 Grammatical Theories about Codeswitching

 Two main theories have dominated this sub-field: the Matrix

Language Frame model of Carol Myers-Scotton and the
Equivalence-based approach of Shona Poplack.
 There are a host of other approaches that attempt to utilize one
formal grammatical theory or another in their analyses, e.g.
McSwan’s use of the Minimalist Programme.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

24 Basic differences between the MLF model and
the Equivalence-based Approach
 For the Equivalence-based approach, constraints are intended to
account for alternational codeswitching and “constituent insertions”.
Concentration is on surface structure configurations.
 For the MLF model, constraints are aimed at attempting to explain
the distribution of single-word and multi-word (constituent)
insertions. Appeal is made to abstract processes that account for
surface structure configurations.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

25 The Equivalence-based Approach
 The main argument / assumption: single lexemes from one language that are
inserted into the structure of another language ALWAYS distribute like their
counterparts in the recipient language (=only the grammar of the recipient
language is activated during this process).
 Therefore, there is no need to deal with such distribution in a CS grammatical
theory.
 A CS grammatical theory needs to only account for two other patterns:
 the juxtaposition of constituents from two languages
 the insertion of multi-word expressions (constituents) from one language in
the grammatical structures of another language.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

26

 Poplack was first exposed to Spanish-English CS, which is very

alternational, hardly insertional.
 Counter-examples to the theory were drawn from insertional
codeswitching, e.g. Dangme-English CS by Akpanglo Nartey
(1982).
 The theory comes in two main constraints: The free morpheme
constraint & the Equivalence constraint

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

27 The free morpheme constraint

 Codes may be switched after any constituent provided that the constituent is not a
bound morpheme.
 That is, no CS may occur between a free form (lexical word, grammatical word)
and a bound form (inflectional, derivational morpheme) e.g. *eat-iendo ‘eating’.
 However, CS is allowed iff the free form has been phonologically integrated into
the recipient language, e.g. flipeando ‘flipping’.
 CS is allowed between 2 free forms.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

28 Equivalence Constraint

 CS will tend to occur at point in discourse where the juxtaposition of L1 and L2

elements does not violate a syntactic rule of either language; i.e. at points around
which elements in the surface structure of 2 languages map onto each other.
 What this means is that CS will be permitted only at points where the word order
in equivalent structures in the 2 languages match.
e.g. He beat him [SVO]/ e-Fo-e [SVO]/ e-beat-e [SVO] (Ewe-
English)
 CS will be prohibited when there is word order mismatch.
e.g. difficult job [AN] / dO sese [NA] / *dO difficult (Ewe-English)

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

29 Counter-examples to the EC:

 Yet we hear yoyo slim ko (Dangme-English), anyitsi pure ma (Ewe-

English)
 We even find that where there is obvious incompatibility, CS still occurs,
as is the case in sentences like (3) that shows Imperfect aspect
(progressive/prospective):
1. Kofi is beating Ama (SVO, English)
2. Kofi le Ama Fo-m (SOV, Ewe)
3. Kofi le Ama beat-m (SOV, Ewe-English)

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

30 The Matrix Language Frame Model

 Basically, the MLF model explains that intra-sentential CS—

codeswitching involving the insertion of lexical and phrasal
categories from one language into the grammatical frames of
another language—is governed by a set of abstract (i.e. cognitive)
principles of language production that are universal. The model has
two basic premises:
1. One has to do with the languages involved in codeswitching
2. The other has to do with types of morphemes in languages and
the functions they play in CS

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

31 Premise 1: There is a hierarchical
relationship between the two or more
languages involved in intrasentential CS
 The Matrix Language
 It is the language which plays the dominant role in the CS event;
 it is the variety which is used to build solidarity among the speakers because it is the
language that is expected to be used (the unmarked code).
 it thus provides the underlying or main syntactic structure of the sentence
 The Embedded Language
 It performs a less dominant function in CS.
 It is the language whose lexical and phrasal categories can be embedded/inserted into
the grammatical structures of the other language, the matrix language.
E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18
32 Premise 2: There is a hierarchical relationship among
morphemes in human languages

4 types of morphemes

Content Morphemes System Morphemes

Early System Late System Morphemes

Morphemes

Outsider Bridge
System Morphemes System Morphemes

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

33

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

34 Working hypotheses

 The ML hypothesis
 The ML blocking hypothesis
 The EL trigger hypothesis

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

35 The ML Hypothesis

 The ML hypothesis explains what goes into the frame building of mixed constituents. It
states that the ML shall determine the morphosyntax of mixed constituents.
  Two testable principles follow from the ML hypothesis. They are the Morpheme Order
Principle and the System Morpheme Principle.
 The Morpheme Order Principle: surface morpheme order in mixed constituents will
be that of the ML, e.g. yoyo slim ko vs *slim yoyo ko
 The System Morpheme Principle: all ‘syntactically or externally relevant’ system
morphemes in mixed constituents will come only from the ML, (i.e. all the
grammatical functional words and inflectional affixes in mixed constituents will come
from the ML), *yoyo the slim; *yoyo slim the; *the slim yoyo

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

36 The Blocking Hypothesis
 It predicts which EL content morphemes may come up in mixed
constituents. It states:
A blocking filter blocks an EL content morpheme not congruent
with its corresponding ML morpheme.
 e.g. in expressing motion events, English encodes PATH of motion in a
satellite while Ewe encodes it in a V2 in an SVC:
(1) The thief jumped over the wall (English)
(2) Fiafi-a dzo-1 to-2 kpOa ta (Ewe)
 Therefore over is incompatible with to and cannot occur in CS:
(3) *Fiafi-a jump over kpOa ta
(4) Fiafi-a jump-1 to-2 kpOa ta
E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18
37 The EL island trigger hypothesis
 It states that EL content morphemes that have been blocked by the blocking filter
may occur as part of an EL Island
 Such an EL Island must be integrated properly in the syntactic frame of the ML
 Many English adjectives cannot occur as post-modifiers of Ewe noun head
because they are pre-modifiers in Ewe. However, they may occur as part of an
English NP that is itself a part of a larger Ewe NP structure:
1. *handsome ŋutsu ma ku. ‘that handsome man died’
2. *ŋutsu handsome ma ku. ‘that handsome man died’
3. Handsome man ma ku. ‘that handsome man died’

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

38 THE CLASSIC CODESWITCHING VS
COMPOSITE CODESWITCHING DISTINCTION

 In order to understand the distinction, we must understand

the following sub-models of the MLF model:
a. Abstract Level Model
b. The Language Production Model

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

39 Abstract Level Model
 The assumptions concerning lexical structure, expressed in the Abstract Level model (Myers-
Scotton and Jake 1995, 2001 and Myers-Scotton 2002), stem from the view that the basis of
syntax is the abstract representations underlying lexical items, called “lemmas”.
 A lemma is the non-phonological set of information about a lexical item which informs the
lexical item’s distribution as a surface-level element. It is stored in speakers’ mental lexicon of
a language. It consists of three subparts:
1. lexical-conceptual structure, i.e. details about the lexeme’s semantic and pragmatic properties (e.g.
does a noun encode Agent, Patient, or Experiencer?; does a verb encode Action, State, or Process?)
2. predicate-argument structure, i.e. details about the lexeme’s syntactic properties (namely details
about its thematic structure to be mapped on to grammatical relations), e.g. whether a noun
conceptualized as Patient is to be expressed as Subject or as Object.
3. morphological realization pattern, i.e. specifications about language-specific devices, like word
order restrictions, agreement, tense / aspect marking system, etc., for realizing the lexeme’s
grammatical relations with other lexemes in surface configurations, e.g. Must a Subject come before
its verb or may it occur elsewhere? Are case-markers required on the Subject? Etc.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

40 The Language Production Model

Four stages:
1. Conceptual Level
2. Lemma Level
3. Functional Level
4. Surface/Positional Level

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

41 CONCEPTUAL LEVEL

 At this level, speakers make selections encapsulating the conceptual

structures they wish to convey. In other words, pre-verbally speakers make
decisions regarding their intentions.
 Such pre-verbal speaker intentions (which consist of universally available
semantic and pragmatic information) are conflated as specific
semantic/pragmatic (SP) feature bundles, which are necessarily language-
specific.
 Speaker goes into “BILINGUAL MODE” (Grosjean 2001).
 Information is sent to the Lemma Level.

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

42 Lemma Level

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

43 Functional Level

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

44 Surface/Positional Level

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

45 Illustrations

 Non-verbal predication in Ewe-English and Akan-English CS

 Mixed Possessive constructions in Ewe-English CS
 Distribution of verbs in Ewe-English vs Akan-English, e.g. stab

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

46

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

47

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

48

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

49

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

50

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

51

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18

52

E.K. Amuzu, Lecture of Codeswitching, English Dept. UG, 13/4/18