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

Re: probem - integrated "borrowing" vs. transfer

Expand Messages
  • lxalvarz@udc.es
    Marian, The phenomena you mentioned are common in so-called bilingual speech. Clear-cut code-switching looks transparent only on paper, in transcription,
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 7, 2001
      Marian,

      The phenomena you mentioned are common in so-called bilingual speech.
      Clear-cut "code-switching" looks transparent only on paper, in
      transcription, particularly when you have two nice different scripts
      or spelling systems to represent each "language" -- in reading this,
      then the "switch" almost sounds transparent, doesn't it? But reality
      is more complicated.

      For example:

      > An other word in his Slovak speech is Slovak, but what is strange
      is
      > that it sounds Croatian:
      > Thanks to the fact the languages are similar, he used the
      intonation
      > contour of the Croatian "ostali" (the-remaining-one), but otherwise
      > the word is completely Slovak "ostatni". The context is
      > Slovak__Croatian, so the phonetics could have been transfered
      thanks
      > to the postcedent.
      > But the initial os- is identical in both the languages, and it
      bears
      > the accent, which in the discourse is Croatian. It could have been
      > some slow code switch with the first language persevering. Or can
      one
      > call it a mix?

      I found similar cases in Galizan(Portuguese)/Spanish alternation. I
      would talk about several parallel signalling systems in
      each "language": prosody, lexis, and grammar. So, alternations may
      occur at different points in discourse. In your case, "Croatian"
      prosody gets activated first. Let's picture your case like this:

      p=Prosody
      l=Lexis
      g=Grammar

      S=Slovak
      C=Croatian

      Stages:
      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
      Sp Sp Sp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp
      Sl Sl Sl Sl Cl Cl Cl Cl
      Sg Sg Sg Sg Cg Sg Sg Sg

      So, at stage 5 (a simplification), Croatian prosody breaks in, while
      full "Croatian" starts at stage 6, right? The end result is, as in
      many other communicative processes, fuzzy boundaries, diffusion,
      indeterminacy. An overall communicative impression obtains, though,
      and *that* is what relevant.

      So, your question
      > -I would like to mark what is in the speaker's Slovak subidiolect
      > integrated from Croatian - how can I identify it in the speech then?

      is many questions. I would distinguish the language alternation (LA)
      structural process from the interactional, communicative code-
      switching (CS) process. I know this sounds weird and unpopular, but I
      understand codes as communicative principles and mechanisms, and
      language varieties as signalling resources for codes. So what matters
      to me is not whether stage 4 or 5 is "Slovak" or "Croatian" (what
      signalling system is used), but what happens there in terms of
      signalling intentions (what code is used).

      A parallel with orchestral music: Let us imagine a musical phrase
      where notes and compasses produced by, say oboes, alternate with
      notes and compasses produced by pianos. The effect is a harmonious
      one. We may identify where alternations take place, but the overall
      effect is much more than a simple sum of two instruments. At some
      points, commutation of oboe sounds by piano sounds might not
      affect "meaning"; at others, it might. Each compass, phrase,
      movement, and orchestral piece are encoded according to different,
      simultaneous intentions. At times, sounds merge in such a way that
      even though two (or more) different musical instruments are used
      simultaneously (violas, oboes) to produce the same note (several
      signalling systems are used), we cannot determine what orchestral
      section is being used. At times, too, some instrument sections sound
      like others!

      Each speaker (whether monolingual or multilingual) is an orchestra.

      Thus, in your data one issue is to determine where the structural,
      Slovak-Croatian alternations (LA) occur. A subsequent issue is to
      ask, and now what? What's the purpose of categorizing this type of
      phenomena as such?

      > Do you have any suggestions or literature recommendations please
      > (the only problem is that a CS literature is rare in here,
      > that is also why I am writing to you)?

      I would start by trying to understand what talk is about, with works
      by John Gumperz (Discourse Strategies, Language in Social Groups, the
      edited volume Language and Social Identity) and some by Erving
      Goffman (Forms of Talk, Frame Analysis), or Susan Ervin-Tripp. Also
      works by some early structuralists, particularly Jakobson.

      Best,
      -celso
      lxalvarz@...

      ========================

      Auer, Peter. 1992. Introduction: John Gumperz' approach to
      contextualization. In The contextualization of language, edited by J.
      C. P. Auer and A. d. Luzio. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

      Diebold, A. Richard. 1961. Incipient bilingualism. Language 37:97-112.

      Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1973. Language acquisition and communicative
      choice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

      Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization
      of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
      ———. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

      Gumperz, John J. 1971. Language in social groups. Essays by John J.
      Gumperz. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
      ———. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Vol. 1, Studies in
      Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
      ———, ed. 1982. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge:
      Cambridge University Press.
      ———. 1992. Contextualization and understanding. In Rethinking
      context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, edited by A. Duranti
      and C. A. Goodwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Haugen, Einar. 1950. Problems of bilingualism. Lingua 2 (3):271-290.
      ———. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26
      (2):210-231.
      ———. 1970. Linguistics and dialinguistics. In Bilingualism and
      language contact, edited by J. E. Alatis. Washington (D.C.):
      Georgetown University Press.

      Jakobson, Roman. 1959. Overlapping of code and message in language.
      American Anthropologist LXI (5):139-145.
      ———. 1961. Linguistics and communication theory. In On the
      structure of language and its mathematical aspects, edited by R.
      Jakobson. Providence (R.I.): American Mathematical Society.

      Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.
    • lxalvarz@udc.es
      Marian I forgot to mention our Code-Switching Bibliography Database to do your bibliographical searches: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/codeswitching/ -celso
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 7, 2001
        Marian

        I forgot to mention our Code-Switching Bibliography Database to do
        your bibliographical searches:

        http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/codeswitching/

        -celso
        lxalvarz@...
      • psa208@nyu.edu
        Ahoj Marian, Your data sounds very interesting. It draws attention to the fact that languages are not the clearly demarkated, discrete entities that we
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 8, 2001
          Ahoj Marian,

          Your data sounds very interesting. It draws attention to the fact
          that languages are not the clearly demarkated, discrete entities that
          we commonly imagine them to be.

          I would recommend an article by Woolard (1999) (see below), which
          focuses mostly on "codeswitching" between Catalan and Castillian
          (Spanish) and the use of elements that prescriptively "belong" to
          both codes - or to neither. It can probably give you some ideas about
          how to describe your data without forcing it into preexisting notions
          of what is Croation and what is Slovak.
          Good luck with your research!
          Best,
          Philipp Angermeyer
          New York University

          Woolard, Kathryn. 1999. Simultaneity and Bivalency as Strategies in
          Bilingualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8 (1): 3-29.



          --- In code-switching@y..., "Marian" <maslo@z...> wrote:
          > Dear list members,
          >
          > I am student who is writing a work where he has met the following
          > rather terminoligical problems:
          >
          > I have an audio tape and a transcript of a narrative interview with
          a
          > man who is speaking Slovak, the man lives in Croatia. His Slovak
          is,
          > therefore, very influenced by the local variety of Croatian.
          >
          > I can clearly see some Croatian words integrated into (=being part
          > of) his Slovakian subidiolect - these words have the phonetic
          > characteristics of other Slovak words and segments in his speech,
          and
          > their Croatian equivalents never occur in his discourse, for
          example,
          > he uses the word vykoristit' which is originally from Croatian
          > iskoristiti, there is the prefix is- translated into Slovakian vy-,
          > the lexeme is Croatian -kosisti- (Slovak is -uzi-, so completely
          > different), the suffix is Slovakian as well (-t' instead of
          Croatian
          -
          > ti or -t). The whole word is phonetically Slovak. In the interview
          he
          > never said vykoristit' and also vyuzit' at the same time (both have
          > the same meaning, but one is his own, the second is Slovakian). On
          > the other hand, quite frequently he says some words (f ex.
          > Cr. "trebao" instead of Sl. "mal"/"potreboval"), which are
          > phonetically Croatian, but their Slovak equivalent is never used.
          > Is it a transfer, a code switch? I don't think so. I call the case
          > like "vykoristit'" an integrated element (into his Slovak
          > subidiolect). As for the case like "trebao" I don't know.
          >
          > There is also a Croatian conjunction "da" in the discourse, but at
          > the same time he uses Slovak "ze", "aby" etc. which have the same
          > function. As for phonetics, one can hardly say, because the word is
          > too short. The "da" is quite frequent, and used without any
          > antecedent hesitation, so I would say that it is at least partly
          > integrated. Is it a transfer (the context is usually Slovak: Slovak
          +
          > da + Slovak)?
          >
          > There is also a hybrid word:
          > "dopaci sa" (cca it-makes-someone-he-likes-it)
          > do- is from Croatian "dopada se"
          > -paci sa is from Slovakian "paci sa"
          > But the phonetic characteristics is Croatian
          > It is in Slovak context. Is it a transfer?
          > What if it came to his mind (and tongue) to say Croatian "dopada",
          > but "realized" that Slovak word is "paci", so he made this hybrid?
          > Would it be a code switch then? (from Slovakian to Croatian and
          back
          > to Slovakian)
          >
          > An other word in his Slovak speech is Slovak, but what is strange
          is
          > that it sounds Croatian:
          > Thanks to the fact the languages are similar, he used the
          intonation
          > contour of the Croatian "ostali" (the-remaining-one), but otherwise
          > the word is completely Slovak "ostatni". The context is
          > Slovak__Croatian, so the phonetics could have been transfered
          thanks
          > to the postcedent.
          > But the initial os- is identical in both the languages, and it
          bears
          > the accent, which in the discourse is Croatian. It could have been
          > some slow code switch with the first language persevering. Or can
          one
          > call it a mix?
          >
          >
          > -I would like to mark what is in the speaker's Slovak subidiolect
          > integrated from Croatian - how can I identify it in the speech then?
          >
          > -How could I identify and name the cases above? It is very hard to
          > write about something if one cannot name it. BTW, what is the
          > difference between an interference and a transfer, and between a
          > borrowing and a transfer?
          >
          > Do you have any suggestions or literature recommendations please
          (the
          > only problem is that a CS literature is rare in here, that is also
          > why I am writing to you)?
          >
          >
        • Renate Blankenhorn
          Hello Marian, ... the same time he uses Slovak ze , aby etc. which have the same function. As for phonetics, one can hardly say, because the word is too
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 8, 2001
            Hello Marian,

            >There is also a Croatian conjunction "da" in the discourse, but at
            the same time he uses Slovak "ze", "aby" etc. which have the same
            function. As for phonetics, one can hardly say, because the word is
            too short. The "da" is quite frequent, and used without any
            antecedent hesitation, so I would say that it is at least partly
            integrated. Is it a transfer (the context is usually Slovak: Slovak +
            da + Slovak)?

            The use of L2 (modal) particles, conjunctions and interjections of different
            kinds seems to be very frequent in bilingual talk.
            My own research about the use of Russian discourse markers in
            Russian-German discourse (i.e. German-speaking minority living in Sibiria)
            shows, that for some functions only Russian discourse markers are used, for
            others Russian and German ones are used interchangeably and sometimes they
            even
            double. The most frequent ones are "nu", "no", "a", "vot" (all
            multifunctional) but "da" and "net" are also amongst them.
            I think you are right - they look pretty integrated to me too: they are used
            repeatedly in the same ways by the same person, by different people, without
            hesitiation (and with hesitation where it is "needed"). If you are
            interested in a few examples (and read German), I can send you my
            article about the borrowing of these Russian function words.

            Best, Renate


            If you want to know more, you could read

            Maschler, Yael (1994) Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual
            conversation. Language in Society 23, S. 325-366.

            Matras, Yaron (1998) Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical
            borrowing. Linguistics 36-2, S.281-332

            Salmons, Joe (1990) Bilingual Discourse Marking: Code Switching, Borrowing,
            and Convergence in Some German-American Dialects. Linguistics 28, 453-480.
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Marian" <maslo@...>
            To: <code-switching@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:30 AM
            Subject: [code-switching] probem - integrated "borrowing" vs. transfer


            > Dear list members,
            >
            > I am student who is writing a work where he has met the following
            > rather terminoligical problems:
            >
            > I have an audio tape and a transcript of a narrative interview with a
            > man who is speaking Slovak, the man lives in Croatia. His Slovak is,
            > therefore, very influenced by the local variety of Croatian.
            >
            > I can clearly see some Croatian words integrated into (=being part
            > of) his Slovakian subidiolect - these words have the phonetic
            > characteristics of other Slovak words and segments in his speech, and
            > their Croatian equivalents never occur in his discourse, for example,
            > he uses the word vykoristit' which is originally from Croatian
            > iskoristiti, there is the prefix is- translated into Slovakian vy-,
            > the lexeme is Croatian -kosisti- (Slovak is -uzi-, so completely
            > different), the suffix is Slovakian as well (-t' instead of Croatian -
            > ti or -t). The whole word is phonetically Slovak. In the interview he
            > never said vykoristit' and also vyuzit' at the same time (both have
            > the same meaning, but one is his own, the second is Slovakian). On
            > the other hand, quite frequently he says some words (f ex.
            > Cr. "trebao" instead of Sl. "mal"/"potreboval"), which are
            > phonetically Croatian, but their Slovak equivalent is never used.
            > Is it a transfer, a code switch? I don't think so. I call the case
            > like "vykoristit'" an integrated element (into his Slovak
            > subidiolect). As for the case like "trebao" I don't know.
            >
            > There is also a Croatian conjunction "da" in the discourse, but at
            > the same time he uses Slovak "ze", "aby" etc. which have the same
            > function. As for phonetics, one can hardly say, because the word is
            > too short. The "da" is quite frequent, and used without any
            > antecedent hesitation, so I would say that it is at least partly
            > integrated. Is it a transfer (the context is usually Slovak: Slovak +
            > da + Slovak)?
            >
            > There is also a hybrid word:
            > "dopaci sa" (cca it-makes-someone-he-likes-it)
            > do- is from Croatian "dopada se"
            > -paci sa is from Slovakian "paci sa"
            > But the phonetic characteristics is Croatian
            > It is in Slovak context. Is it a transfer?
            > What if it came to his mind (and tongue) to say Croatian "dopada",
            > but "realized" that Slovak word is "paci", so he made this hybrid?
            > Would it be a code switch then? (from Slovakian to Croatian and back
            > to Slovakian)
            >
            > An other word in his Slovak speech is Slovak, but what is strange is
            > that it sounds Croatian:
            > Thanks to the fact the languages are similar, he used the intonation
            > contour of the Croatian "ostali" (the-remaining-one), but otherwise
            > the word is completely Slovak "ostatni". The context is
            > Slovak__Croatian, so the phonetics could have been transfered thanks
            > to the postcedent.
            > But the initial os- is identical in both the languages, and it bears
            > the accent, which in the discourse is Croatian. It could have been
            > some slow code switch with the first language persevering. Or can one
            > call it a mix?
            >
            >
            > -I would like to mark what is in the speaker's Slovak subidiolect
            > integrated from Croatian - how can I identify it in the speech then?
            >
            > -How could I identify and name the cases above? It is very hard to
            > write about something if one cannot name it. BTW, what is the
            > difference between an interference and a transfer, and between a
            > borrowing and a transfer?
            >
            > Do you have any suggestions or literature recommendations please (the
            > only problem is that a CS literature is rare in here, that is also
            > why I am writing to you)?
            >
            > Best regards
            > Marian
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > 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
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.