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

Re : Re : Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?

Expand Messages
  • sebastien kitengye
    Bonjour Irène As-tu des documents en français sur le modèle 4-M de Scotton. Je viens de lire ce mail en retard. Puis-je attendre de toi ces documents?
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 15, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Bonjour Irène
      As-tu des documents en français sur le modèle 4-M de Scotton. Je viens de lire ce mail en retard. Puis-je attendre de toi ces documents?
      Merci d'avance.
      Sébastien
      l



      ________________________________
      De : ngoie irene <ngoie.irene@...>
      À : code-switching@yahoogroups.com
      Envoyé le : Samedi, 13 Juin 2009, 20h57mn 18s
      Objet : Re : Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?





      BONJOUR
      effectivement noyers et poplack se diffère sur la contrainte de morphème et sur les emprunt pour  myers  l'insertion d'un seul lexique ou plusieurs suffit pour parler de l'alternance codique tandis que pour Poplack c'est le contraire. je fais une étude descriptive mon étude se fonde sur la methode (MLF) matrix language frame  et parfois quand je me retrouve devant un incongruence je fait recours au 4-M c'est justement l'un de modele du niveau abstrait Myers pour complete. 4-M pour dire 4morphème . ce modele vient compléter le MLF de (1993) à case des limites de ces derniers myers le completel'hypothè se de la ML. le modèle linéaire de Poplack est vraiment limité surtout surtout avec nos langue d'afrique ou l'insertion se fait n'importe quand  n'importe comment.   bref tout ces modele de myers consisteen   l'ident
      ification de la ML. Mais le 4-M va plus loin il est plus psycholinguistique et psychocognitif . c'est interessant pour celui qui étudie le CS de L'acquisition de langue

      merci
      --- En date de : Sam 13.6.09, sebastien kitengye <samsoki@yahoo. fr> a écrit :

      De: sebastien kitengye <samsoki@yahoo. fr>
      Objet: Re : Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?
      À: code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
      Date: Samedi 13 Juin 2009, 14h15

      Je travaille sur l'alternance kisongye/franç ais. Et la thèse est en lecture depuis plusieurs mois. Je crois avoir dirigé une monographie sur l'alternance swahili/franç ais d'un certain Lukulunga Masudi.
      Quel est le titre exact de votre recherche? s'agit-il d'une étude  desciptive? Sociolinguistique (variation ou interaction? ) Qu'est-ce que  vous appelez 4-M? J'ai besoin des réponses pour répondre à votre question. Vous savez que Myers-Scotton avec son modèle de la langue matrice s'oppose nettement à Shana Poplack.  Pouvez-vous me répondre?
      Sébastien.

      ____________ _________ _________ __
      De : ngoie irene <ngoie.irene@ yahoo.fr>
      À : code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
      Envoyé le : Samedi, 13 Juin 2009, 14h31mn 38s
      Objet : Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?

      BONJOUR Seba 
      est -ce qu'on peut travailler sur le code-switching avec la methode de Myers-Scotton sans faire allusion de 4-M
      merci

      --- En date de : Sam 13.6.09, sebastien kitengye <samsoki@yahoo. fr> a écrit :

      De: sebastien kitengye <samsoki@yahoo. fr>
      Objet: Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?
      À: code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
      Date: Samedi 13 Juin 2009, 9h26

      Hello Dr Sebba!
      Comment puis-je obtenir The Cambridge Handbook on Linguistic Code-switching, 2OO9?
      Pouvez-vous me faire parvenir votre article et celui de Myers-Scotton?
      Sébastien.

      ____________ _________ _________ __
      De : "Sebba, Mark" <m.sebba@lancaster. ac.uk>
      À : code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
      Envoyé le : Vendredi, 12 Juin 2009, 14h17mn 24s
      Objet : RE: Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?

      I doubt that it will answer the question, but my chapter in the recent Cambridge Handbook on Linguistic Code-Switching discusses some of the complexities of this. The full reference is:

      Sebba, Mark "On the notions of congruence and convergence in code-switching" , in Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds) The Cambridge Handbook on Linguistic Code-Switching, pp. 40-57. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

      Mark

      Dr Mark Sebba
      Reader in Sociolinguistics and Language Contact
      Department of Linguistics,
      Lancaster University
      Lancaster LA1 4YT
      Great Britain
      Tel. +44 1524 592453
      Fax +44 1524 843085
      e-mail: M.Sebba@lancaster. ac.uk

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

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

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

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

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







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • ngoie irene
      LINGUIST List 14.2501 Mon Sep 22 2003 Review: Psycholing/Socioling: Myers-Scotton (2003) Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara What
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        LINGUIST List 14.2501
        Mon Sep 22 2003
        Review: Psycholing/Socioling: Myers-Scotton (2003)
        Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>

        What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Simin Karimi at siminlinguistlist.org.


        Directory

        Alexander Rusakov, Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes


        Message 1: Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical OutcomesDate: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:30:46 +0000
        From: Alexander Rusakov <rusakovAR2015.spb.edu>
        Subject: Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes
        2nd review

        Myers-Scotton, Carol (2002) Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters
        and Grammatical Outcomes, Oxford University Press.

        Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-3317.html


        Alexander Yu. Rusakov, St. Petersburg State University

        The book under review contains a detailed account of Myers-Scotton's
        theory in its current state. This theory was first proposed in her
        landmark classic ''Duelling languages'' (Myers-Scotton 1993a); further
        developments in this theory can be traced in numerous follow-up
        studies written by either Myers-Scotton alone (e.g. 1998, 2001 ) or in
        collaboration with colleagues (e.g. Myers-Scotton & Jake 1995,
        2000). Although the cornerstone assumptions remain unchanged, the
        theory has significantly changed since its appearance. It may be
        observed that a general trend of that development was a shift from a
        theory of code-switching with special stress on its grammatical aspect
        to a broader theory of language contacts. The phenomena viewed in this
        theory are different kinds of structural outcome in the languages
        involved in the contacts, ranging from borrowing to the formation of
        pidgin and creole languages. It is repeatedly pointed out that there
        is a fundamental unanimity between the phenomena at issue (cf. ''[t]he
        same set of principles and processes explains all contact phenomena'',
        xii), as well as between bilingual and monolingual speech
        (cf. ''[t]hese principles and processes are apparent in language in
        general'', xii).

        Along with the discussion of the ideas put forward by Myers-Scotton
        and numerous linguistic facts in support of those, the book contains
        an elaborate and expedient survey of the up-to-date literature for
        each of the raised topics. The text of the book is extremely dense,
        which poses certain problems for reviewing it. Thus, in the synopsis,
        I will confine myself to the indication at the basic issues raised in
        each chapter. It is equally impossible to touch upon all the
        theoretical problems discussed by Myers-Scotton in the evaluative part
        of the review. Thus I am forced to concentrate on a small range of
        issues, mostly on those of particular interest to me personally.

        SYNOPSIS

        The monograph is aptly organized from a didactic point of view. In the
        first chapter, a short outline of a theoretical model or, rather, of
        several models proposed by Myers-Scotton is offered, ''[c]hapter 2 is
        the only one that does not focus on grammatical structures in specific
        contact phenomena; instead, it offers an overview of the
        sociolinguistic factors that promote bilingualism across societies and
        in individuals'' (28). The third chapter contains a detailed
        description of the theoretical approach advocated in the book, while
        the following three ones show how this approach ''works'' with respect
        to the various types of contact data. In particular, chapter 4 focuses
        on the ''problematic'' cases of code-switching, chapter 5 on the
        problems of convergence and attrition and chapter 6 on lexical
        borrowings, mixed languages and creoles. ''The final chapter (Chapter
        7) offers a summary in the form of a set of hypotheses based on
        discussions in the earlier chapters'' (29).

        1. INTRODUCTION (1-29) briefly outlines the subject of investigation
        (see above) and introduces the general theoretical base of the
        study. This base includes four general principles: - The Matrix
        Language principle - The Uniform Structure principle, cf. ''[a] given
        constituent type in any language has a uniform abstract structure and
        the requirements of well-formedness for this constituent type must be
        observed whenever the constituent appears'' (8) - The Asymmetry
        Principle for bilingual frames (asymmetry of the participation of the
        languages involved in the bilingual speech) - and The Morpheme-Sorting
        Principle (''[a]t the abstract level of linguistic competence and
        production, there are different types of morphemes. In bilingual
        speech, the outcome of these abstract differences is that all the
        morphemes from the participating varieties do not have equal
        possibilities of occurrence'' (9).

        Based on these principles, three models are put forward: the main
        Matrix Language Frame model (MLF), that was originally proposed in
        (Myers-Scotton 1993a) and then amended almost to its current state in
        Myers-Scotton 1997, and two supplementary models developed in
        collaboration with Jan Jake - The 4-M model and the Abstract Level
        model. These models are thoroughly described in Chapter 3.

        A number of questions essential for further argument are tackled in
        the Introduction. In particular, ''implications for a model of
        language production'' are discussed; an approach adopted by
        Myers-Scotton ''presupposes the model of language production'' that is
        generally in accordance with (Levelt 1989) although in a modified
        version (basically, as a result of putting forward the 4-M model).

        A crucial terminological opposition is introduced here between classic
        codeswitching (codeswitching in which both the matrix language and
        embedded language are preserved more or less intact, and ''the
        speakers ... can produce well-formed monolingual utterances in the
        variety which becomes the source of... ML'' - 8) and composite
        codeswitching (matrix language has gone through a convergence with the
        embedded language).

        2. THE ROOTS OF LANGUAGE CONTACT (30-52) views language contact
        phenomena from a sociolinguistic point of view. Some factors favoring
        bilingualism are revealed, as well as ''the costs and rewards of
        bilingualism in the international area'' and the ''motivations to
        become bilingual''. A separate section is devoted to language-use
        patterns, here lexical borrowing are dealt with (to be discussed in
        more detail in chapter 6) along with the use of language in various
        functional domains and sociolinguistic aspects of
        codeswitching. Besides, Rational Choice Model (cf. in detail Myers-
        Scotton & Bolonyai 2001) is briefly outlined, which is an up-to-date
        variant of Myers-Scotton's earlier Markedness model (cf. Myers-
        Scotton 1993b). The most important innovation in this model is
        assuming ''that choices are best explained as cognitive based
        calculations that depend on their estimations of what choices offer
        them the greatest rewards... [t]hat a bilingual may see switching
        languages at some point in a conversation as a way to optimize
        rewards'' (46). Further on, one may find a short section devoted to
        language shift; finally, in the end of the chapter and as a kind of
        transitory part to the essential part of the monograph, six structural
        results of bilingualism are listed which are the topics of the book.
        These are (i) lexical borrowing, (ii) codeswitching, (iii)
        convergence, (iv) attrition, that goes hand in hand with language
        shift, (v) mixed (split) languages, and (vi) creoles (52).

        3. EXPLAINING THE MODELS AND THEIR USES (53-107) contains a detailed
        description of the three basic models, with special stress on the
        innovations as compared to the theory outlined in Myers-Scotton
        1993a. Some points are highlighted:

        - CP (projection of complementizer) and not sentence is used as unit
        of analysis (an argument for that has been already proposed in
        Myers-Scotton 1997). Codeswitching addressed to in the monograph is
        codeswitching within the CP exclusively. Such a preference is first of
        all due to the vagueness of the notion of sentence and, contrariwise,
        to the clearness of the notion of CP. - There are some amendments
        with respect to the concept of Matrix Language (ML) if compared to the
        1993 model. In particular, it is indicated that, although ML may
        change within an utterance, it happens very rarely and, most
        importantly, ML does not change within the CP. A discussion follows on
        the relations between ML and ''the source variety that the Matrix
        Language frame so closely resembles'' (66). In order to demonstrate
        the distinction, Myers- Scotton points to the fact that there are two
        types of elements that are built into the ML frame (bare forms from
        Embedded Language and Embedded Language islands) ''that are not
        completely integrated into the morphosyntax of the source of the
        Matrix Language'' (67). Admittedly, however, '''Matrix Language' may
        be used as a label for the source language as a short cut'' (67). It
        is curious in this respect that on the following page one reads that
        ''[t]he Matrix Language is an abstract construct... . The Matrix
        language is an abstract frame... [i]t does not include actual
        morphemes nor is it isomorphic with any fully fleshed-out linguistic
        variety'' (68). It seems that the relations (or even a controversy)
        between the two understandings of ML, viz. 1) a language form that is
        near to, although probably distinct from, the source language (this
        distinction is in fact determined by the ML's role in Codeswitching)
        and 2) ML as an abstract frame remain somewhat unexplicated (see also
        Boussofara Omar 2003).

        - An opposition between content and system morphemes yields its place
        to a more sophisticated 4-M model. The need for such a model was
        called for by the fact that there were system morphemes of Embedded
        language that did not meet one of the basic principles of the model,
        viz. not to appear in mixed constituents. The crucial point of the new
        model is a more detailed classification of morphemes that is based on
        the parameters that are in no way related to contact phenomena. The
        cornerstone opposition of this new classification is [+/- conceptually
        activated] distinction of morphemes. The first group of morphemes
        embraces those morphemes that ''are salient at the level of the mental
        lexicon''. Lemmas underlying these ''types of morpheme are more
        directly linked to speaker's intention'' (74); in other words, such
        elements have semantic content'' (76). Content morphemes and early
        system morphemes belong to this group, the lemmas underlying the
        latter kind of morphemes are, as it were, extracted by the lemmas of
        underlying content morphemes, as they are activated on earlier stages
        of sentence production. The other group encompasses two types of late
        system morphemes that serve syntactic relations, within and outside
        the Maximal Projection of Head, correspondingly. These morphemes are
        activated at the later stages of utterance production. One of the main
        objectives of the book is to demonstrate that these two groups of
        morphemes behave differently in contact situations.

        Two other points must be emphasized. 1) The very term 'morpheme' is
        used to convey two different meaning in Myers-Scotton's book, namely,
        for the actual surface-level morphemes, but also for the lemmas that
        support them, abstract entities in the mental lexicon
        (106). Accordingly, several 'underlying' morphemes may correspond to a
        single 'surface' one. This is of particular importance when dealing
        with inflexional languages (see below). 2) 'Early' and 'late'
        morphemes may be mixed within one grammatical category;
        e.g. 'semantic' case morphemes (such as locative and the like) are
        'early' morphemes, while syntax-oriented case morphemes belong to the
        'late' type of morphemes.

        - Another important achievement is an introduction of the Abstract
        Level theory claiming ''that there are three levels of abstract
        grammatical structure in any lexical item... [:] (i) the level of
        lexical- conceptual structure...; (ii) the level of predicate-argument
        structure..; (iii) the level of morphological realization
        patterns...'' (96). Two domains in which this model is at work are
        discussed at some length. On the one hand, in classic codeswitching
        (see above for the term) a morpheme of the embedded language that
        'pretend' to be uttered must be checked for congruence with its
        ''Matrix language counterparts''. If this congruence fails at a
        certain level, the elements of the embedded language are included in a
        not fully integrated form (bare forms or Embedded Language islands;
        see Chapter 4 for these problems). On the other hand, the Abstract
        Level model neatly accounts for the convergence phenomena (to be
        discussed in Chapter 5).

        4. CONSIDERING PROBLEMATIC CODESWITCHING DATA AND OTHER APPROACHES
        (108-163) views the 'behavior' of morphemes of Embedded Language, when
        they do not meet the requirement of congruence (imposed by the
        Abstract Level model). One option is the incorporation of bare
        forms. It is shown that the incongruence of the NP structures in
        Embedded and Matrix Languages leads to the intrusion of a lexical
        morpheme in its bare form; on the contrary, if the early system
        morphemes of the NP (e.g., determiners) show the full congruency with
        the corresponding elements of the Matrix language they may be used
        with their content morphemes.

        Another topic of this chapter is Embedded Language Islands. A number
        of important theoretical issues are touched upon here. These include
        triggering (Myers-Scotton is rather skeptical with respect to the role
        of this phenomenon), pragmatic and grammatical motivation of Embedded
        Language Islands use, Embedded Language islands and proficiency. As
        regards the latter, Myers-Scotton makes a rather witty remark: a wide
        use of Embedded Language Islands is indicative of high proficiency in
        Embedded Language. On the other hand, ''when speakers are nearly
        equally at home in both languages, almost ironically, Embedded
        Language Islands lose their importance. Instead, switching between
        CPs becomes very frequent as well as switching between sentences''
        (149). (Could not it be the case that in this situation one may rather
        speak about a short-term poise between the two languages without clear
        domination of one of them?)

        Finally, in the last section of the chapter, Myers-Scotton tackles the
        question of distinguishing between borrowing and codeswitching, the
        topic that has been already discussed in some detail as early as in
        Myers-Scotton 1993a. This section is primarily based on the dispute
        with those researchers whose views go contrary to those of Myers-
        Scotton. These are first of all Susanne Polack and her associates as
        well the adherents of the Government and Binding theory or Minimalist
        Program. Myers-Scotton points at fundamental similarity between
        borrowing and codeswitching, at least on a synchronic level.

        There are some other crucial points in this chapter that seem to be
        relevant for the whole theory of Myers-Scotton. 1) The problem of
        different patterns of behavior of verbs resp. nouns in language
        contacts. This problem has been attracting researchers' attention for
        many years (see e.g. a special section on bilingual verbs in Muysken
        2000). This topic is prevailing throughout the book. There are
        several remarks that are worth mentioning in this respect. - Unlike
        nouns, verbs ''are [+thematic role assigner] and therefore carry more
        'syntactic baggage' than nouns, meaning their fit with the recipient
        language may be harder to make'' (76); - The reason for the frequently
        attested use of Embedded Language verbs in do-constructions in Matrix
        Language could be ''a conflict of branching requirements between the
        Matrix language and the Embedded Language'' (162). - Infrequency of
        adapted verb forms' use may be accounted for by the ''lack of
        congruence across tense/aspect systems'' (138).

        2) As regards Embedded Language Islands, Myers-Scotton dwells on the
        notion of ''internal Embedded Language Island'', that is, a
        constituent which is ''part of larger constituent in which they
        constitute a sister to a Matrix language element under N-bar...''
        (149). In some cases, such an island is in fact just an inflected
        wordform of Embedded Language, e.g. a plural forms (ghost-s).
        Elsewhere, arguing against (although partially agreeing with) Ad
        Backus, Myers-Scotton advances an important observation, according to
        which ''[i]dioms, like irregular plurals and irregular past tenses in
        English (and other languages), may well be contained in single lemmas
        and therefore are not compositionally assembled'' (141). It is not,
        however, completely clear whether the units of this kind that are
        reproduced by rote are Embedded Language Islands (probably not?). This
        problem is very important for the understanding of the essence of
        codeswitching in inflexional languages; I'll touch upon it once again
        in the last part of the review.

        5. CONVERGENCE AND ATTRITION (164-232) discusses convergence as
        outcome as having ''two distinctive features: (i) all surface
        morphemes come from one language; (ii) the abstract lexical structure
        projecting these morphemes no longer comes from one language, but
        includes some abstract structure from another language'' (164). These
        features are characteristic for the attrition as well. The difference
        between these phenomena has a sociolinguistic rather purely linguistic
        sense: the convergence is characteristic for the given speech
        community as a whole (or for the part of speech community); the
        attrition is an individual feature. Besides It may be passingly
        remarked that the distinction between convergence and attrition is
        drawn less straightforwardly than is usually typical of Myers-Scotton.

        In this chapter several key notions of contact linguistics are
        discussed, such as convergence areas (=Sprachbund). It is emphasized
        that ''such areas result from past instances of asymmetrical
        relationships'' (230). Existing studies of language attrition are
        inquired into in much detail. In this discussion, Myers- Scotton
        appears to be rather skeptical towards the notion of markedness
        (following Thomason and Kaufman 1988 in this respect).

        Central for this chapter are theoretical assumptions of Myers-Scotton
        herself. Being based on the studies of individual attrition (belonging
        to both Myers-Scotton and other researchers), these assumptions are,
        of course, valid with respect to convergence as well.

        An essential notion of composite matrix language is introduced, i.e.
        of a language that has undergone convergence (''[b]oth convergence and
        codeswitching necessarily involve a composite Matrix language'',
        165). It is noticed below, however, that convergence merely ''often
        involves codeswitching''. The major part of the section is devoted to
        the discussion of whether Abstract Level model and 4- M model are
        applicable in the analysis of attrition and convergence. A number of
        hypotheses are put forward; these could be briefly summarized in the
        two following hierarchies of susceptibility of alteration under
        attrition: (i) Predicate-argument structure < morphological
        realization patterns < lexical-conceptual structure (ii) Late system
        morphemes < early system morphemes < content morphemes

        It remains unclear, however, with respect to the first of these two
        clines, whether it is arrived at deductively or based on a
        quantitative analysis of empirical data. In the latter case, it must
        be noticed that statistical data reported in the monograph (p. 200)
        are not themselves convincing enough for the hierarchy proposed.

        6. LEXICAL BORROWING, SPLIT (MIXED) LANGUAGES, AND CREOLE FORMATION
        (233-294) is one of the most substantial chapters in the book; it
        concentrates on a topic, which is in fact essential for the whole
        monograph, namely, on the discrepant behavior of lexical elements and
        ''those signaling grammatical relations''.

        Speaking about lexical borrowings, Myers-Scotton traditionally
        distinguishes between cultural borrowed forms and core borrowed forms;
        the former may ''begin life'' ''in the monolingual speech of either
        bilinguals or monolinguals .... [as well as] in the codeswitching of
        bilinguals'' (239), while the latter may do so as code switches
        only. It is further argued that there is a crucial difference in the
        mechanism of borrowing content and system morphemes (first of all,
        late system morphemes), the latter may ''come into a language when its
        morphosyntactic frame undergoes a reconfiguration'', that is, after
        convergence has come into play. Borrowing of such morphemes ''is a
        sign of a Matrix Language Turnover''. It is noteworthy that
        Myers-Scotton does not comment on the borrowing hierarchy of the
        different structural types of grammatical morphemes (auxiliaries,
        agglutinative affixes, flexions), although this topic is quite popular
        in the literature on language contacts.

        The following section of the chapter is devoted to the mixed
        languages, for which Myers-Scotton prefers the label of 'split
        languages'. Two definitions of split languages are given, a strong one
        (''[a] split language shows all - or almost all - of its
        morphosyntactic frame from a different source language from large
        portions of its lexicon; this frame includes all - or almost all - of
        its late system morphemes from the language of the morphosyntactic
        frame'') and a less stringent one (''[a] split language shows a major
        constituent with its system morphemes and major parts of the
        morphosyntactic frame from a different source language from that of
        most of the lexicon and the morphosyntactic frame of other
        constituents'', 249).

        The three most commonly known cases of split languages are discussed,
        namely, Michif, Mednyj Aleut and Ma'a (Mbugu). The basic mechanism
        giving rise to split languages is the Matrix Language
        turnover. Convergence is a prerequisite for this mechanism, while
        codeswitching is a favored although not completely obligatory
        requirement. The Matrix Language turnover may trigger a number of
        different scenarios of development: (i) it might be arrested at a
        certain stage; such a scenario is assumed for Mednyj Aleut, based
        largely on Golovko's (1996, 1999) point of view; (ii) it might be
        (almost) completed: ''a complete turnover of all the late system
        morphemes with or without a turnover in at least some of the lexicon''
        (248); an example of such development is Ma'a; (iii) finally, Matrix
        Language turnover may lead to a language shift. As far as Michif is
        concerned, Matrix language turnover is not, as far as I can
        understand, postulated in its development; rather we deal with a
        peculiar combination of fossilized codeswitching and convergence. A
        distinct pattern of behavior of lexical and grammatical elements is
        typical of all instances of split languages.

        It is worth emphasizing that while Myers-Scotton assumes common
        structural pattern of development for all split languages, she
        acknowledges the difference in direction of such development in
        individual languages depending on particular sociolinguistic
        circumstances. Discussing conscious effort on speakers' part
        (constructing, inventing) as a possible factor in the formation of
        split languages, Myers-Scotton notices that ''[s]peakers can
        consciously decide they want to change the way they speak, but this is
        not the same thing as deciding how to change it'' (253).

        The last section of the chapter deals with creoles. Myers-Scotton does
        not draw a distinction between pidgins and creoles assuming that
        nativization (or its absence) is not related to the structure of these
        languages and thus is not relevant for the approach adopted in the
        monograph. Generally, Myers-Scotton adheres to ''the subtratist''
        position and substantiates this position within her general
        theoretical framework. Myers-Scotton's views on the structural
        development of creoles are represented in five basic hypotheses that
        can be briefly summarized as follows: (i) ''[t]he substrate varieties
        contribute to creole formation by supplying the 'invisible'
        morphosyntactic frame of the creole'' (277); (ii) ... [s]uperstrate-
        content morphemes are much more frequent in the creole than substrate
        ones'' (281); (iii) ''[c]ontent morphemes from the superstrate can be
        reconfigured as system morphemes'' in creoles (283; curiously,
        Myers-Scotton does not mention the notion of grammaticalization at any
        point of the discussion of such examples); (iv) ''[e]arly system
        morphemes from the superstrate are only available to satisfy creole
        requirements when they are accessed along with their heads'' (286,
        numerous cases of the use of superstrate words with their determiners
        are meant; it seems more appropriate to view these as single units
        resulting from 'incorrect analysis' of the noun phrases of superstrate
        language); (v) ''[l]ate system morphemes from the superstrate are not
        available to satisfy the requirements of the creole morphosyntactic
        frame'' due to the difficulty of access to the frame of the
        superstrate language (287).

        7. CONCLUDING REMARKS: THE OUT OF SIGHT IN CONTACT LINGUISTICS
        (295-310), which concludes this monograph, elegantly recapitulates its
        main ideas as a set of 'hypotheses for further testing'. These
        hypotheses are grouped around two basic theoretical themes: (i)
        ''[t]he asymmetry between participating languages in contact phenomena
        and the press forward of the abstract frame of one language to
        prevail'' (297), and (ii) ''[t]he inherent lack of parity between
        different types of morphemes within the abstract frame of all
        languages in terms of their patterns of distribution'' (297). Another
        crucial point is putting forward some basic assumptions that link
        together the various contact phenomena discussed in the book. A
        summary of basic assumptions reads as follows: ''If there is language
        shift, the mechanisms involved follow this hierarchy: Classic
        codeswitching < convergence < composite codeswitching (i.e. shift most
        likely with composite codeswitching)'' (299).

        EVALUATION

        It must be clear from what has been said above that the new book of
        Myers-Scotton is one of the most important contributions to the study
        of codeswitching and language contacts that has been published in the
        recent years both because of the width of issues discussed and
        theoretical depth of treating these issues. It seems, however, that
        the very striving for an all-embracing and uncontroversial global
        theory is the reason why some points remain somewhat unclear. Due to
        space limitations, I will dwell at some length on those issues only
        that are of special interest to me.

        1. Composite codeswitching and congruent lexicalisation. According to
        Myers-Scotton, composite matrix language, that is, matrix language
        that has undergone convergence, is a prerequisite for composite
        codeswitching. Grammatical frame incorporates elements of the abstract
        structure of embedded language. Thus, incorporation of the elements
        from the embedded language is facilitated, as it becomes easier for
        these elements to be checked for congruence on all of the three levels
        of the Abstract Level model. Basically, the phenomenon at issue is
        reminiscent of what Pieter Muysken calls congruent lexicalisation
        (Muysken 2000: 153). There is, however, an important distinction
        between the two. Muysken does not confine himself to the instances of
        assimilation between grammatical structures of two languages as a
        result of convergence, treating under the same label those cases when
        ''[t]he languages share the grammatical structure of the sentence''
        (Muysken 2000: 122) due to other reasons (e.g., by virtue of their
        close cognation). In other words, Muysken approaches this phenomenon
        from a purely synchronic point of view, not taking into consideration
        its potentially different origins, while Myers-Scotton, on the
        contrary, views it, as it were, from a developmental point of view;
        however, she sticks to discussing one particular scenario of
        development not inquiring other possible variants. The question
        arises, whether Myers-Scotton views as composite codeswitching any
        codeswitching occurring between the languages whose grammatical and
        conceptual structures are similar. Most likely, the answer is
        negative.

        A possible cue to this problem could have been a comparison of
        codeswitching in those situations when grammatical structures of two
        languages are similar due to convergence and in those situations when
        there is a pre-established structural affinity; however, such a
        comparison is not undertaken.

        Another remarks pertains to Myers-Scotton's discussion of composite
        matrix language, which is characterized as a deviation from ''desired
        target language'', that is accounted for by the lack of ''sufficient
        access'' to the latter. This explanation is suitable, it seems, for
        the cases of individual attrition. Things get more complicated if the
        history of individual languages is concerned, such as e.g. the
        development of Romani dialects almost all of which have undergone
        convergence, although with different languages and to a different
        extent. On the one hand, the very existence of target language is
        doubtful in this case. On the other hand, a study of the real
        functioning of Romani dialects shows that speakers of these dialects
        have sufficient access to their native language in every particular
        moment of time. It's quite another matter that this very language has
        changed and the functional range of its use has narrowed under the
        influence of the surrounding population (which usually dominates).

        2. A tendency to follow rigidly the System morpheme principle leads to
        unnecessary, as it seems, formalization of the notion of Embedded
        Language island. It is particularly so with respect to the so-called
        internal Embedded Language islands (see above), that are sometimes in
        fact just isolated word forms of embedded language. As an example of
        this the ''unadapted'' Russian verb forms in the North Russian Romani
        dialect (NRRD, cf. Rusakov 2001) may be given, that are used in this
        dialect along with the adapted nominal forms. (Curiously enough,
        these Russian verb forms and nominal forms are treated uniformly in
        metalinguistic comments of the speakers of this dialect; see Rusakov
        2001 for more detail). From a purely formal point of view, nothing
        prevents treating these forms as instances of Embedded Language
        islands. Moreover, the reasons of the use of these forms fit nicely
        into Myers-Scotton's theoretical assumptions, namely, the lack of
        congruence with the corresponding Russian forms (most likely, on the
        level of morphological realization patterns, according to the Abstract
        Level model). It appears, however, that under such a purely
        formalistic approach, the difference between isolated ''islands'' of
        this type and those islands that are relatively long stretches of text
        gets unnoticed or underestimated. And still, this difference, however
        difficult it is to formalize it, seems to be crucial, and crucial for
        the processes of speech production that are generally essential for
        Myers-Scotton's approach. Here a reference to Pieter Muysken's
        conception could be of some help as he distinguishes between the two
        mechanisms o codeswitching (code-mixing, in Muysken's terminology),
        that is, between insertion and alternation. In Muysken's view,
        internal Embedded Language islands would be undoubted instances of
        insertion, while a vast majority of 'longer' Embedded Language islands
        would be treated as alternation. It must be admitted for the sake of
        objectivity, however, that the difference between alternation and
        insertion is less amenable to formalization.

        3. Explicit rejection of the distinction between codeswitching and
        borrowings on the synchronic level highlights the problem of borrowing
        of grammatical morphemes (first of all, of late system morphemes
        according to Myers-Scotton). Myers-Scotton convincingly observes that
        the mechanism behind such borrowings is quite different from that
        behind lexical borrowings. An explanation of these phenomena as
        instances of arrested (after having begun) Matrix Language turnover,
        that is, as a first step towards a formation of mixed (split) language
        seems convincing and far-reaching as well. However, in order to avoid
        a possibility of degrading the notion of 'arrested Matrix Language
        turnover' to a mere synonym of high level of interference (in the
        spirit of Thomason and Kaufmann), it is vital to understand what
        properties are indeed shared (if there are such properties) by
        relatively infrequent but non-unique cases of borrowing of grammatical
        morphemes from another language (e.g. borrowing of the Russian
        prefixes to the NRRD, of Slavic verb prefixes and suffixes to
        Megleno-Rumanian, of Turkish verbal affixes to Asia Minor Greek). It
        may be noticed that a similar problem arises with respect to the rise
        of ''classical'' mixed (split) languages. Existing theories, among
        which Myers-Scotton's is one the most deeply grounded, provide
        convincing general patterns of their development; however, none of
        them is able to explain why has a particular very unusual
        configuration of the elements from the two languages emerged in this
        or that particular place and in this or that particular period of
        time. This situation is generally typical of historical linguistics,
        though.

        4. The theoretical model advanced by Myers-Scotton is undoubtedly
        universal in nature. However, a question arises to what extent are the
        properties of the postulated processes dependent on the typological
        characteristics of the languages involved. An example of such
        dependence is provided by Myers-Scotton herself who relates frequent
        use of bare forms in codeswitching with left-branching character of
        the Matrix Language. There are, however, some problems of typological
        nature. As has been already mentioned above, Myers-Scotton uses the
        term 'morpheme' for both ''the actual surface-level morphemes'' and
        ''the lemmas that support them''. Thus, several abstract morphemes
        may correspond to a single surface one; this situation is first of all
        typical of inflexional languages. Myers-Scotton introduces a ''pull
        down'' principle for those cases when surface morpheme corresponds to
        ''abstract'' morphemes of different types (early and late). According
        to that principle ''the entire element shows distribution patterns as
        if it were a late system morpheme'' (305). Empirical data in support
        of this principle are provided in (Myers-Scotton & Jake 2001). The
        question, however, arises how does this principle work in case of
        inflexional languages.

        As mentioned above, Myers-Scotton assumes that some word forms (of
        inflexional languages - A.R.) ''may well be contained in single lemmas
        and therefore are not compositionally assembled''. It is obvious that
        these cases are viewed as rather peripheral. It must be kept in mind,
        however, that there is no unanimity among linguists as to what forms
        are produced by rote resp. by rule in inflexional languages. The
        problem is even more complicated with respect to the second language
        (naturally, Embedded language is usually though not necessarily always
        a second language of a speaker). In any case, it is clear that the
        problem of holistic processing of inflected wordforms in codeswitching
        exists and needs further investigation. It may be also mentioned that
        wordforms of inflectional languages are not only characterized by the
        cumulative character of expressing morphological meanings, but also by
        the blurriness of morpheme boundaries, etc. It seems in this
        connection that intrusion of the Embedded language elements into the
        Matrix Language frame may cause additional troubles when checking on
        the level of morphological realization patterns. For instance,
        adaptation of the Russian verbs for their intrusion into the NRRD
        grammatical frame requires elicitation of the Russian verb stem, which
        is an intricate operation itself, especially if one takes into account
        the tangled character of the Russian morphonology.

        5. Speaking about word order in the chapter devoted to convergence
        (Myers-Scotton points out that word order is an early system morpheme
        in some cases) Myers-Scotton almost does not touch upon the
        possibility of contact-induced changes that take place on superficial
        level, that is, changes of analogical character (syntactic
        calques). However, some scholars consider these to be a major type of
        contact-induced syntactic changes (see e.g. Joseph 1998). In any case,
        changes of this type must play a key role in the assimilation of
        syntactical frames of languages involved in contacts. Myers-Scotton
        notices on p. 202 that ''abstract specifications for word orders at
        all levels of syntax also represent the level of morphological
        realization patterns''. It remains, however, somewhat unclear what
        role do superficial changes play in Myers-Scotton's theory.

        All what has been said above is not to be understood as criticism;
        rather, it was thought of as pointing out some problems, further
        elaboration of which could have been useful in my opinion. Some minor
        remarks and considerations are also scattered in Synopsis.

        It is worth emphasizing once again that the book under review
        represents an extremely significant contribution to the study of
        language contacts.

        REFERENCES

        Boussofara-Omar, Naima (2003) Review of Contact Linguistics: Bilingual
        Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes, by Carol Myers-Scotton.
        http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-1077.html

        Golovko, Evgenij (1996) A Case of Nongenetic Development in the Arctic
        Area: The Contribution of Aleut and Russian to the Formation of Copper
        Island Aleut. In: Ernst H. Jahr and Ingvild Broch (eds.), Language
        Contact in the Arctic: Northern Pidgins and Contact Languages,
        63-77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

        Golovko, Evgenij (2000) Language and Ethnic Identity: Sociolinguistic
        Conditions for the Emergence of Mixed Languages, Paper presented at
        the workshop on Mixed Languages, University f Manchester, 12/2000.

        Joseph, Brian D. (1998) Is Balkan Comparative Syntax Possible?
        http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~bjoseph/

        Levelt, Willem J.M. (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation.
        Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

        Muysken, Pieter (2000) Bilingual Speech. A Typology of Code-
        Mixing. Cambridge: CUP.

        Myers-Scotton, Carol (1993a [1997]) Duelling Language. Grammatical
        Structure in Codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

        Myers-Scotton, Carol (1993b) Social Motivations for Codeswitching:
        evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

        Myers-Scotton, Carol (1997) Afterword. In: Myer-Scotton (1993b).

        Myers-Scotton, Carol (1998) A way to dusty death: the Matrix Language
        turnover hypothesis. In: Grenoble, Lenore A. & Lindsay J. Whaley
        (eds.) Endangered Languages. Cambridge: CUP, 289-316.

        Myers-Scotton, Carol (2001) The Matrix Language Frame Model:
        Developments and Responses. In: Rodolfo Jacobson (ed.), Codeswitching
        Worldwide II, 23-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

        Myers-Scotton, Carol and Jake, Janice (1995) Matching Lemmas in a
        Bilingual Language Production Model: Evidence from Intrasentential
        Codeswitching. Linguistics, 33: 981-1024.

        Myers-Scotton, Carol and Jake, Janice (2000) Four Types of Morpheme:
        Evidence from Aphasia, Codeswitching, and Second Language
        acquisition. Linguistics, 38: 6, 1053-100.

        Myers-Scotton, Carol and Jake, Janice (2001) Explaining Aspects of
        Codeswitching and Their Implications. In: Janet Nicol 9ed.), One Mind,
        Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing, 84-116. Oxford:
        Blackwell.

        Myers-Scotton, Carol and Bolonyai, Agnes (2001) calculating Speakers:
        Codeswitching in a Rational Choice Model. Language in Society, 31/1:
        1-28.

        Rusakov, Alexander (2001) The North Russian Romani Dialect:
        Interference and Code Switching. // O.Dahl & M.Koptjevskaja-Tamm
        (eds.). Circum-Baltic languages. v.1,
        313-337. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

        Thomason, Sarah and Kaufman, Terence (1988) Language Contact,
        Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of
        California Press.

        ABOUT THE REVIEWER

        Alexander Yu. Rusakov is assistant professor at the St. Petersburg
        State University, Department of General Linguistics. His research
        interests include language contacts, historical linguistics, Balkan
        linguistics, Albanian language, and Romani.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue


        --- En date de : Mar 16.6.09, sebastien kitengye <samsoki@...> a écrit :


        De: sebastien kitengye <samsoki@...>
        Objet: Re : Re : Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?
        À: code-switching@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Mardi 16 Juin 2009, 0h31








        Bonjour Irène
        As-tu des documents en français sur le modèle 4-M de Scotton. Je viens de lire ce mail en retard. Puis-je attendre de toi ces documents?
        Merci d'avance.
        Sébastien
        l

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        De : ngoie irene <ngoie.irene@ yahoo.fr>
        À : code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
        Envoyé le : Samedi, 13 Juin 2009, 20h57mn 18s
        Objet : Re : Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?

        BONJOUR
        effectivement noyers et poplack se diffère sur la contrainte de morphème et sur les emprunt pour  myers  l'insertion d'un seul lexique ou plusieurs suffit pour parler de l'alternance codique tandis que pour Poplack c'est le contraire. je fais une étude descriptive mon étude se fonde sur la methode (MLF) matrix language frame  et parfois quand je me retrouve devant un incongruence je fait recours au 4-M c'est justement l'un de modele du niveau abstrait Myers pour complete. 4-M pour dire 4morphème . ce modele vient compléter le MLF de (1993) à case des limites de ces derniers myers le completel'hypothè se de la ML. le modèle linéaire de Poplack est vraiment limité surtout surtout avec nos langue d'afrique ou l'insertion se fait n'importe quand  n'importe comment.   bref tout ces modele de myers consisteen   l'ident
        ification de la ML. Mais le 4-M va plus loin il est plus psycholinguistique et psychocognitif . c'est interessant pour celui qui étudie le CS de L'acquisition de langue

        merci
        --- En date de : Sam 13.6.09, sebastien kitengye <samsoki@yahoo. fr> a écrit :

        De: sebastien kitengye <samsoki@yahoo. fr>
        Objet: Re : Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?
        À: code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Samedi 13 Juin 2009, 14h15

        Je travaille sur l'alternance kisongye/franç ais. Et la thèse est en lecture depuis plusieurs mois. Je crois avoir dirigé une monographie sur l'alternance swahili/franç ais d'un certain Lukulunga Masudi.
        Quel est le titre exact de votre recherche? s'agit-il d'une étude  desciptive? Sociolinguistique (variation ou interaction? ) Qu'est-ce que  vous appelez 4-M? J'ai besoin des réponses pour répondre à votre question. Vous savez que Myers-Scotton avec son modèle de la langue matrice s'oppose nettement à Shana Poplack.  Pouvez-vous me répondre?
        Sébastien.

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        De : ngoie irene <ngoie.irene@ yahoo.fr>
        À : code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
        Envoyé le : Samedi, 13 Juin 2009, 14h31mn 38s
        Objet : Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?

        BONJOUR Seba 
        est -ce qu'on peut travailler sur le code-switching avec la methode de Myers-Scotton sans faire allusion de 4-M
        merci

        --- En date de : Sam 13.6.09, sebastien kitengye <samsoki@yahoo. fr> a écrit :

        De: sebastien kitengye <samsoki@yahoo. fr>
        Objet: Re : Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?
        À: code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Samedi 13 Juin 2009, 9h26

        Hello Dr Sebba!
        Comment puis-je obtenir The Cambridge Handbook on Linguistic Code-switching, 2OO9?
        Pouvez-vous me faire parvenir votre article et celui de Myers-Scotton?
        Sébastien.

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        De : "Sebba, Mark" <m.sebba@lancaster. ac.uk>
        À : code-switching@ yahoogroups. com
        Envoyé le : Vendredi, 12 Juin 2009, 14h17mn 24s
        Objet : RE: Re : [code-switching] is there any explanation for this code switching ?

        I doubt that it will answer the question, but my chapter in the recent Cambridge Handbook on Linguistic Code-Switching discusses some of the complexities of this. The full reference is:

        Sebba, Mark "On the notions of congruence and convergence in code-switching" , in Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds) The Cambridge Handbook on Linguistic Code-Switching, pp. 40-57. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

        Mark

        Dr Mark Sebba
        Reader in Sociolinguistics and Language Contact
        Department of Linguistics,
        Lancaster University
        Lancaster LA1 4YT
        Great Britain
        Tel. +44 1524 592453
        Fax +44 1524 843085
        e-mail: M.Sebba@lancaster. ac.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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



















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