Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

determination of codeswitched and borrowed items

Expand Messages
  • salman riaz
    Hi all, it has been a long-standing issue as to how to determine whether a loan item is a codeswitched or a borrowed item. over time, several opinions have
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 23, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,

      it has been a long-standing issue as to how to determine whether a loan item is a codeswitched or a borrowed item. over time, several opinions have surfaced, one of the most influential being Shana Poplack's approach, which states that if a loan item is morpho-syntactically and phonologically integrated into recipient language it should be considered an instance of borrowing, whereas one that does not that of codeswitching. i wonder whether some of you would kindly explain to me the idea of morpho-syntactic integration. examples from English or Urdu would be of immense help.

      regards,

      Muhammad Salman Riaz




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James L. Fidelholtz
      Hi, Salman, In an attempt to show you *why* the debate continues, let me return to one of my favorite examples in borrowing: Bach as used (pronounced) in
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 23, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Salman,

        In an attempt to show you *why* the debate continues, let me return to one
        of my favorite examples in borrowing: 'Bach' as used (pronounced) in
        English. I and many other speakers pronounce the composer's name [in
        English] as [ba:x]. I imagine that the majority of (at least American)
        speakers would pronounce the name as [ba:k]. Let me, however, quote you one
        of my favorite limericks (alas, a 'clean' one):

        There once was a fellow named Hatch
        Who was fond of the music of Bach.
        He said, "It's not fussy
        like Brahms or Debussy;
        Sit down and I'll play you a snatch."
        [note: [braemz]]

        Now *that's* anglicization! That is, nobody would consider the names as
        pronounced in this limerick as anything but utterly assimilated to English
        phonology and therefore incorporated into the English lexicon. I have argued
        in this forum, on the other hand, that even people like me who pronounce the
        composer's name as [ba:x] are *not* using code-switching. [NB: not all such
        people know any German!] It might be argued that we are slightly more
        'cultured' (in the 'snotty' sense of the word), but anybody who accuses me
        of code-switching between English and German has obviously never conversed
        (or tried to converse) with me in German!

        From my point of view, the real problem with Poplack's attempted
        'definition' (really, a separation into two classes), as theoretically
        appealing as it may be (and perhaps in any case a useful sort of distinction
        on which to base the discussion), ignores the clear fact that (even
        phonological) assimilation to a language is not black & white: there are
        degrees. Even in my example, we have several degrees of assimilation. I
        didn't even mention the real German pronunciation, which only a native
        German speaker would use in English, where it *might* then be a case of
        code-switching (this would need to be a decision for Pragmatics to make, and
        not an easy one at that). That pronunciation would be with a more retracted
        velar fricative: [ba::>x]. My sort of pronunciation is one step along the
        cline towards anglicization: [ba:x]. (Even for me, this pronunciation is
        *not* how I would pronounce the name if I were trying to pronounce it *in*
        German.) Further along this cline is the 'normal' 'English' pronunciation
        [ba:k]. Perhaps a further intermediate stage might be [baek], though I can't
        say I have ever heard this pronunciation. Finally (perhaps), the limerick
        pronunciation: [baech] (same as <batch>). As I have indicated, I don't find
        any convenient place along this cline (even including the 'native' German
        pronunciation) to place a division between C-S and 'borrowing'. That is, for
        some German speakers using the German pronunciation in trying to speak
        English, this would *not* be code-switching, but rather an L1-L2
        interference in their attempts to speak English, but still totally 'English'
        (just not precisely the same English code used by native speakers of that
        language). For others, some monolingual native speakers of English, using
        [ba:x], a more nativized version (or even using [ba:k*]) *could* be an
        example of code-switching, conceptually.

        I hope this has indicated the complexities of this problem to some extent.
        There simply is no cookbook solution to when something is code-switching and
        when it is borrowing. The problem is further complicated by the fact that
        borrowing obviously starts with bilingual (or incipiently bilingual)
        speakers, usually. Another factor is the fact that large groups of words
        'bulk-borrowed' into a language from another one may retain certain sorts of
        non-native characteristics at least for centuries, if not indefinitely. An
        example of this is word-final stress on borrowings into English, quite rare
        (or at least unusual) in the 'native', Anglo-Saxon vocabulary of English.
        (This due to the influx of French and other Romance borrowings over the last
        millennium.) Another example is the connecting -o- morpheme which
        distinguishes 'Greek' borrowings (formal ones) into English, also over
        nearly a millennium, via academic Latin. But, 'non-native' though they may
        be, these examples are definitively *not* code-switching, unless you want to
        consider switching, say, to a more formal style a kind of code-switching. I
        would find that an abuse of the term C-S. It *was*, perhaps (a millennium
        ago), a sort of code-switching, but no longer can be reasonably considered
        as such.

        Jim



        On 2/23/09, salman riaz <salman.riaz@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi all,
        >
        > it has been a long-standing issue as to how to determine whether a loan
        > item is a codeswitched or a borrowed item. over time, several opinions have
        > surfaced, one of the most influential being Shana Poplack's approach, which
        > states that if a loan item is morpho-syntactically and phonologically
        > integrated into recipient language it should be considered an instance of
        > borrowing, whereas one that does not that of codeswitching. i wonder whether
        > some of you would kindly explain to me the idea of morpho-syntactic
        > integration. examples from English or Urdu would be of immense help.
        >
        > regards,
        >
        > Muhammad Salman Riaz
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >



        --
        James L. Fidelholtz
        Posgrado en Ciencias del Lenguaje
        Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades
        Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, MÉXICO


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Zoubir Dendane
        Salaam Muhammad, I ve just read your message and an example of borrowing (I think) crossed my mind: In Canadian French, they say Je vais crosser la rue ;
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 26, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Salaam Muhammad,
          I've just read your message and an example of borrowing (I think) crossed my mind:
          In Canadian French, they say 'Je vais crosser la rue'; this is a morohologically adapted borrowing as the verb 'to cross' is used with the French {- er} suffix morpheme for the infinitive, instrad of the French verb traverser. (Meaning: I'm going to cross the street). Here in Algeria Aeabic, we have a great number of borrowings of all types.
          Hopr this will help. Good luck.
          Zoubir    

          --- On Mon, 2/23/09, salman riaz <salman.riaz@...> wrote:

          From: salman riaz <salman.riaz@...>
          Subject: [code-switching] determination of codeswitched and borrowed items
          To: code-switching@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 12:52 PM






          Hi all,

          it has been a long-standing issue as to how to determine whether a loan item is a codeswitched or a borrowed item. over time, several opinions have surfaced, one of the most influential being Shana Poplack's approach, which states that if a loan item is morpho-syntacticall y and phonologically integrated into recipient language it should be considered an instance of borrowing, whereas one that does not that of codeswitching. i wonder whether some of you would kindly explain to me the idea of morpho-syntactic integration. examples from English or Urdu would be of immense help.

          regards,

          Muhammad Salman Riaz

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • adriana
          Hi Muhammad, I ve just read your message. Sadly, I cannot help you with Urdu, but I happen to have studied English borrowings into Italian and Brazilian
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 26, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Muhammad,
            I've just read your message. Sadly, I cannot help you with Urdu, but I
            happen to have studied English borrowings into Italian and Brazilian
            Portuguese. When Shana Poplack talks about morpho-syntactic integration of
            the borrowing, she means that the borrowing acquired and incorporated some
            characteristics of the borrowing language.

            The example Zoubir's already given you is perfect. Just for the sake of it,
            I will offer two more. Let's take the verb "to click" and the noun "click",
            which have been borrowed by both Italian and Brazilian Portuguese.

            In Italian you can easily find the verb "cliccare", as in "clicca qui"
            (click here), where the English borrowing has been morphologically modified
            by adding the suffix -are and transforming the "ck" (a consonantal chunk
            that does not exist in the Italian language) into "cc" (which actually
            reflects an orthographic modification). However, in Italian we can also say
            "fai click qui" (which also means "click here"). In this case you can see
            that the borrowing has not been morphologically (or even orthographically)
            modified.

            In Portuguese, the verb "to click" has been borrowed and morphologically
            modified into "clicar" by adding the suffix -ar. The noun "click" has also
            been orthographically modified in order to follow the Brazilian Portuguese
            rules for orthographic-phonological correspondence, and it was transformed
            into "clique" /'kliki/.

            As far as this goes, I can understand and agree with Poplack in that these
            morphologically modified borrowings have actually very little to do with the
            source language (English in my examples) and are practically completely
            assimilated by the borrowing language.

            Now, when we analyze the phonetic/phonological aspects, things start to get
            confused and tricky. Ideally, different languages use the phonetic space in
            different ways (CANEPARI, Luciano. Introduzione alla fonetica. Torino:
            Einaudi, 1979) so that speakers of different languages will pronounce "the
            same phoneme" in different ways. This alone already proves that all
            borrowings are phonetically and even phonologically modified when they are
            pronounced by speakers of the borrowing language.

            From this point of view, I think it is kind of difficult to apply Poplack's
            definition of borrowing vs. code-switching.

            Personally, i think that in order to really understand the difference
            between borrowings and code-switching we need first to focus on those words
            (from English, for example) that have not been morpho-syntactically or
            orthographically modified. Then, we need a reliable and comprehensive corpus
            to check their occurrence in the borrowing language (ie. Urdu, Italian,
            Portuguese). If their occurrence is high, then chances are it is a case of
            borrowing. If their occurrence is low, on the other hand, chances are it is
            a case of code-switching.

            I hope I didn`t annoy you with all this amount of writing, I just got
            carried on...

            I would love to hear more about your research because I myself intend to
            continue studying loan-words and code-switching.

            Thank you and good luck



            --
            adriana mendes
            adry84@...
            http://adrymendes.blogspot.com/


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • mostari hind
            hi Muhamed , of course Poplack s work on Nonce borrowing vs borrowing is of great interest and the most agreed among linguists ; when a word is neither
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 26, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              hi Muhamed ,
              of course Poplack's work on Nonce borrowing vs borrowing is of great interest and the most
              agreed among linguists ; when a word is neither phonologically or morphologically integrated , it is regarded as CS not borrowing , but here again , it depends on its frequency
              some linguists classify a non integrated word as borrowing if  it occurs frequently  in the recipient language .
              From French/English : we have : il presente one man show : ( He presents a one man show) here one man show is frequently used in the french speech , it is a borrowed expression , also , it is phonologically integrated in the french language since it is pronounced with a french accent .
               
               
              hope it helps
              best regards
              Mostari
              --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Zoubir Dendane <zdendane@...> wrote:

              From: Zoubir Dendane <zdendane@...>
              Subject: Re: [code-switching] determination of codeswitched and borrowed items
              To: code-switching@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 8:26 PM






              Salaam Muhammad,
              I've just read your message and an example of borrowing (I think) crossed my mind:
              In Canadian French, they say 'Je vais crosser la rue'; this is a morohologically adapted borrowing as the verb 'to cross' is used with the French {- er} suffix morpheme for the infinitive, instrad of the French verb traverser. (Meaning: I'm going to cross the street). Here in Algeria Aeabic, we have a great number of borrowings of all types.
              Hopr this will help. Good luck.
              Zoubir    

              --- On Mon, 2/23/09, salman riaz <salman.riaz@ yahoo.com> wrote:

              From: salman riaz <salman.riaz@ yahoo.com>
              Subject: [code-switching] determination of codeswitched and borrowed items
              To: code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
              Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

              Hi all,

              it has been a long-standing issue as to how to determine whether a loan item is a codeswitched or a borrowed item. over time, several opinions have surfaced, one of the most influential being Shana Poplack's approach, which states that if a loan item is morpho-syntacticall y and phonologically integrated into recipient language it should be considered an instance of borrowing, whereas one that does not that of codeswitching. i wonder whether some of you would kindly explain to me the idea of morpho-syntactic integration. examples from English or Urdu would be of immense help.

              regards,

              Muhammad Salman Riaz

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              Messages in this topic (3) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
              Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
              To Post a message: code-switching @ yahoogroups.com
              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              code-switching-unsubscribe @ yahoogroups.com
              Web page: http//groups.yahoo.com/group/code-switching

              Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
              Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
              Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe



              Recent Activity


               2
              New Members

               1
              New LinksVisit Your Group





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • salman riaz
              Hi Mostari,Zoubir and Jim,   Thank you so much for your help, for which I am highly indebted to you all. Undoubtedly, Poplack s ‘purely linguistic’
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 27, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Mostari,Zoubir and Jim,
                 
                Thank you so much for your help, for which I am highly indebted to you all. Undoubtedly, Poplack's ‘purely linguistic’ approach is illuminating. However, the deeper I delve into it the graver the matter appears. The yardstick of phonological integration is especially problematic, rather unconvincing. And as for morphological integration, we know that only a few loan items receive morphological integration. But what of the huge bulk of those items which do not undergo morphological modification – most of which are treated as instances of borrowing, rather than codeswitching, in bilingual literature?
                 
                Let’s turn to another point. In Poplack’s approach, there are three levels of integration that a loan item must pass to be considered a case of borrowing: phonological, morphological, and syntactic. I fail to understand what syntactic integration refers to. Is it something related to a loan item’s falling in a different word-order in the recipient language? If this is so, every loan item finding its way in a varying word-order must be considered a case of borrowing. Please let me know if I am wrong.
                Regards,
                Muhammad Salman Riaz
                salman.riaz@...



                ________________________________
                From: mostari hind <hmostari@...>
                To: code-switching@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:46:50 AM
                Subject: Re: [code-switching] determination of codeswitched and borrowed items



                hi Muhamed ,
                of course Poplack's work on Nonce borrowing vs borrowing is of great interest and the most
                agreed among linguists ; when a word is neither phonologically or morphologically integrated , it is regarded as CS not borrowing , but here again , it depends on its frequency
                some linguists classify a non integrated word as borrowing if  it occurs frequently  in the recipient language .
                From French/English : we have : il presente one man show : ( He presents a one man show) here one man show is frequently used in the french speech , it is a borrowed expression , also , it is phonologically integrated in the french language since it is pronounced with a french accent .
                 
                 
                hope it helps
                best regards
                Mostari
                --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Zoubir Dendane <zdendane@yahoo. com> wrote:

                From: Zoubir Dendane <zdendane@yahoo. com>
                Subject: Re: [code-switching] determination of codeswitched and borrowed items
                To: code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
                Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 8:26 PM

                Salaam Muhammad,
                I've just read your message and an example of borrowing (I think) crossed my mind:
                In Canadian French, they say 'Je vais crosser la rue'; this is a morohologically adapted borrowing as the verb 'to cross' is used with the French {- er} suffix morpheme for the infinitive, instrad of the French verb traverser. (Meaning: I'm going to cross the street). Here in Algeria Aeabic, we have a great number of borrowings of all types.
                Hopr this will help. Good luck.
                Zoubir    

                --- On Mon, 2/23/09, salman riaz <salman.riaz@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                From: salman riaz <salman.riaz@ yahoo.com>
                Subject: [code-switching] determination of codeswitched and borrowed items
                To: code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
                Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

                Hi all,

                it has been a long-standing issue as to how to determine whether a loan item is a codeswitched or a borrowed item. over time, several opinions have surfaced, one of the most influential being Shana Poplack's approach, which states that if a loan item is morpho-syntacticall y and phonologically integrated into recipient language it should be considered an instance of borrowing, whereas one that does not that of codeswitching. i wonder whether some of you would kindly explain to me the idea of morpho-syntactic integration. examples from English or Urdu would be of immense help.

                regards,

                Muhammad Salman Riaz

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                Messages in this topic (3) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
                Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
                To Post a message: code-switching @ yahoogroups. com
                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                code-switching- unsubscribe @ yahoogroups. com
                Web page: http//groups. yahoo.com/ group/code- switching

                Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
                Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
                Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

                Recent Activity

                 2
                New Members

                 1
                New LinksVisit Your Group

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • mostari hind
                hi salman  , But what of the huge bulk of those items which do not undergo morphological modification – most of which are treated as instances of borrowing,
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 13 12:44 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  hi salman  ,
                  But what of the huge bulk of those items which do not undergo morphological modification – most of which are treated as instances of borrowing, rather than codeswitching, in bilingual literature?

                  The answer is the freqeuncy criterion : if the item is repeatedly used by the recipient speech community , so generally , it is a loan word .
                  if it is aoccaionally  used ; here it is considered as CS
                  I focus -word- not expression or long streches of words , which are considered as cases of
                  inter or intra sentential CS .
                   
                  - for your second question : syntactic intergration means that the word order changes
                  for example if the word belongs to Fr where the order is : SVO
                  and is adapted syntactically to another language where the order let's  say OVS ( for instance ) here , there is a synatctic intergration , but the word need not to be ' morphologicaly and synatctically and phonologically adapted , to call it loan word ,  if it is only phonologically and/or morphologically and/or syntactically intergrated , so, it is a loan word .
                  But here again, there are # approaches and criteria for these terminologies , so you have to adopt one , to be precise .
                   
                  best regards
                  hope it helps
                  Mostari
                  ALGERIA

                  --- On Sat, 2/28/09, salman riaz <salman.riaz@...> wrote:





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.