Bilingual speech in Jaru–Kriol conversations: Codeswitching, codemixing, and grammatical fusion

Abstract

Aims and objectives: Language contact in the Yaruman community of Western Australia has led to prevalent bilingual practices between the endangered language Jaru and the creole language Kriol. This study examines ordinary conversations in the community and investigates whether the observable bilingual practices are interactionally relevant, and whether codemixing has led to the emergence of a conventionalised mixed language. Approach: The research is based on a qualitative analysis of bilingual speech in natural conversation. The approach combines the methodological framework of interactional linguistics with an analysis of the grammatical structures of conversational data. Data and analysis: The analysed data consist of two hours and thirty minutes of transcribed video recordings, comprising 13 casual multi-party conversations involving all generations in the Yaruman community. The recordings were made using lapel microphones and two high-definition cameras. Findings: Bilingual Jaru–Kriol speakers use codeswitching as an interactional resource for a range of conversational activities. In many cases, however, speakers’ code choices are not interactionally relevant. Instead, codemixing is often oriented to as a normative way of speaking and participants exploit their full linguistic repertoire by relatively freely combining elements from both languages. There are also signs of morphological fusion in the mixed speech of younger Jaru speakers, who more frequently combine Kriol verb structure and Jaru nominal morphology. However, this morphological split is not fully conventionalised and variation is still substantial. Originality: The bilingual speech continuum is supported by the analysis of conversational data in a situation of language shift. This article shows that fusion involving core grammatical categories can occur among a subgroup of speakers without developing into a community-wide mixed language. Significance: The study contributes to a better understanding of community bilingualism and bilingual practices in a situation of language shift. It demonstrates how codeswitching, codemixing, and grammatical fusion can co-exist in a bilingual community.

You switch I switch, Jack: On the role of interaction in Cabo Verdean language mixing

“…First, the rate participants maintained each other's language usage was calculated, modeled in part after Fricke & Kootstra's (2016) quantitative framework. Second, following the qualitative Bilingual Conversation Analysis model (see : Auer 1998;Wei 2002Wei , 2005, the data was analyzed for previously attested contextual cues for changing languages such as signaling disagreement, topic change or to call for attention (see : Auer 1984;Gafaranga & Torres 2002;Dahmen 2022;Wei 2002Wei , 2005. Through the novel integration of qualitative and quantitative methods for interactional analysis, the present investigation shows that the interaction plays an important role in how bilinguals structure language mixing.…”

“…For example, changing the LOI can signal (i) a repair previous language choice (ii) disagreement (iii) a topic change or (iv) emphasis or a call for attention. Dahmen (2022) draws from Bilingual Conversation Analysis to an interactional study on the bilingual Jaru-Kriol community in western Australia. Through a sequential analysis of 2.5 hours of natural conversational data, he analyzed points of alternation between speaker turns for instances of language mixing.…”

“…QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. The qualitative analysis drew from Conversation Analysis and interactional frameworks (Auer 1998;Wei 2002Wei , 2005Dahmen 2022) to contextualize the 'preference for same language talk' and interrogate interactional motivations for changing the LOI. The four conversations were transcribed by a proficient English-Kriolu speaker and annotations were made in ELAN (2022).…”

“…While the clues from the conversation are prioritized, knowledge of the speakers and the community can be informative and crucial, thus these details were considered post-Conversation Analysis (Auer 1998). Following Dahmen (2022), whether each LOI change is 'interactionally meaningful' or 'action neutral' is also noted. 'Interactionally meaningful' examples matched previous observed meanings (e.g.…”

A satellite view of spatial points in conversation1

“…The excerpts discussed in this section are part of a collection of place reference and locational points in multiparty conversations conducted (predominantly) in three typologically distant Australian languages, Murrinhpatha, Gija, and Jaru, and Australian English spoken in the Kimberley region of Western Australia (see Table 9.1). Note that in the Gija and Jaru corpora, participants frequently codemix these languages with the local varieties of Kriol (an English-based creole language), as well as with neighbouring Indigenous languages (Dahmen, 2021;de Dear et al, 2020). While we have found many of the directional points in these corpora to be reasonably accurate (i.e., if the indicated vector lies within 30° of the target, de , our principal concern here is whether co-participants orient to directional points as being sufficiently adequate, such that the reference is successful.…”