Coexistent Phonemic Systems

Fries, Charles C.; Pike, Kenneth L.

doi:10.2307/409907

Cited by 90 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…se pueden dar tres formulaciones del análisis bilingüe: a) bilingüismo como coexistencia conflictiva de dos sistemas uniformes, y desde esta base se propone predecir su interacción (Fries y Pike, 1949); b) bilingüismo como alternancia completa o nula de dos sistemas separados, cada uno unido por reglas de estricta coocurrencia, es decir, asistimos a un sistema de tipo único A, B, C, o A, B 2 C 2 , pero nunca A, B 2 C,,o c) bilingüismo como alternancia entre dos subsistemas de un único repertorio, donde cualquier elemento puede covariar dentro de él, p. ej. la variable (B) con variantes B,y B 2 puede covariar con otras variables (A) y (C), y podría darse, aunque raramente A, B 2 C" que justificaría hablar de alternancia o cambio de norma dentro de un único sistema complejo.…”

Section: Regla Variable O Estudio Variacionistaunclassified

Multilingüismo y multilectismo

Menéndez¹

1984

ELUA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sociolinguistic studies on multilingualism and multilectism have focused on linguistic, social and formal aspects of the analysis of the multilingual and multilectal communities, influenced by the important contributions of U. Weinreich (1953), J. A. Fishman ef al. (1971) and W. Labov (1969). From this point of view, I examine in the present article the main approaches of multilingualism and multilectism: languages in contact, diglossia and variable rule. A sociolinguistics of multilingualism and multilectism must become workable a strict methodology and a general one with the pragmatic and psycholinguistic contributions. I argue that, to put the issue into a proper perspective, free from isolatism and dogmatism, it would be best to start out from assumptions of difference and integration, and to work towards a sociolinguistic theory that will explain the sociolinguistic competence of the multilingual and/or multilectal speech community.

show abstract

Section: Regla Variable O Estudio Variacionistaunclassified

Multilingüismo y multilectismo

Menéndez¹

1984

ELUA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fries and K. Pike [2] and bilingualism as introduced and described by U. Weinreich, E. Haugen, H. Vogt [3][4][5]. As was supposed the term "code-switching" reflected not uniquely a linguistic phenomenon but rather a psychological one, or their combination, so from the very start it was a multidisciplinary term [5: 368].…”

Section: Analyzing Definition: What Is Code Switching?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Code-Switching: State-of-the Art

Александровна

Mustafa

2018

Vestn. Ross. univ. družby nar., Ser. Teor. âzyka semiot. semant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Code-switching is one of the aspects to study the immediate results of language contacts which supposes that intra-sentential analysis of morpho-syntactic structures could explain the causes and reasons of language borrowings in synchronic linguistics. It also involves psychological and social aspects of human behaviour, but confines itself to linguistic analysis. At present three main theories which are language rooted and the most developed ones govern code-switching research, namely, linear order constraint model of S. Poplack et al.; linear order non-constraint model of N. Chomsky and E. Woldorf and Matrix Language Frame model elaborated by C. Myers-Scotton. All the three proceed from the idea of a monolingual grammar regulating code-switching process, though in Chomskyan model such monolingual grammar is substituted with the Universal Grammar in combination with generative grammar rules. The C. MyersScotton Frame model seems more complicated as it is organized as a double-headed instrument: dominant Matrix Language doesn't eliminate the factor of Embedded Language which in course of their interaction creates a kind of collaboration. All the three models basically deal with a sentence structure and thus are in fact intra-sentential studies, though the conclusions are also made on the morphological and even phonological aspects of the utterance. Lexicon of languages in contact is practically neglected in the studies but N. Chomsky, and J. MacSwan and C. Myers-Scotton pay attention to lexical borrowings; they prove the importance of those by developing the notion of nonce borrowings specific representation of culture and tradition. In fact the present day state-of-the art in the domain of code-switching base itself upon observation and language samples accumulation in course of analysis of structural features of contacting languages. The shortcomings of the approach might be motivated by the fact that typological language features are not applied, so the analysis lacks a solid background bringing in random data without any classification possible. Thus one may assume that main results at a present level of research could be found in the sphere of methodology and methods. As to code-switching terminology it's in course of development: even the notion of 'code' in our opinion needs more precise definition as it originally refers not to language itself but to semiotic systems of various origins and nature.The directions for future research do not confine themselves to bilingual or multilingual data, but mean to deepen the multidisciplinary studies of language contacts and verify the reasons for code-switching through the complex of humanities and natural sciences applied to linguistic items and codes.

show abstract

“…co-existing, fusional, koine, etc.) linguistic systems (see Faingold forthcoming [Chapter 6], Fries & Pike 1949). In my view-and this may cause a strong reaction among theoretical linguists studying the languages of the Amazon-there are probably no 'ideal' speakers (in the Chomskyan sense) among any of the languages in this study (with the exception perhaps of the Machiguenga), since all the communities involved in this study underwent strong pressures to conform with the dominant language at some point or other in the 400 years of contact with Spanish.…”

Section: Reviewed By Eduardo D Faingoldmentioning

confidence: 99%