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

Re: [code-switching] determination of codeswitched and borrowed items

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 of 7 , Mar 13, 2009
            • 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.