Contact and Code‐Switching

Abstract

Language contact has been invoked with increasing frequency over the past two or three decades as a, or the, cause of a wide range of linguistic changes. Historical linguists have (of course) mainly addressed these changes from a diachronic perspective -that is, analyzing ways in which language contact has influenced lexical and/or structural developments over time. But sociolinguists, and many or most of the scholars who would characterize their specialty as contact linguistics, have focused on processes involving contact in analyzing synchronic variation. A few scholars have even argued that contact is the sole source of lan guage variation and change; this extreme position is a neat counterpoint to an older position in historical linguistics, namely, that language contact is responsible only for lexical changes and quite minor structural changes. (This long-superseded older position is echoed, surpris ingly, in Labov's recent claim that 'structural borrowing is rare ' and superficial (Labov 2007: 349, 383).) In this chapter I will argue that neither extreme position is viable. This argument will be developed through a survey of general types of contact explanations, especially explanations for changes over time, juxtaposed with a comparative survey of major causal factors in internally-motivated language change. My goal is to show that both internal and external motivations are needed in any full account of language history (Hickey 2012) and, by implication, of synchronic variation. Progress in contact linguistics depends, in my opinion, on recognizing the complexity of change processes -on resisting the urge to offer a single simple explanation for all types of structural change.The structure of the chapter is as follows. Section 1 provides some background concepts and definitions, and sections 2 and 3 compare and contrast contact explanations with internal explanations of change. Section 4 discusses a much-cited typology-based theory about contact vs. internal explanations. Section 5, finally, is a brief conclusion that includes a warning about the need to be cautious in making claims about the causes of change -both because in most cases no cause can be firmly established and because of the real possibility that multiple causes are responsible for a particular change. Some Background ConceptsFirst, what counts as language contact? The mere juxtaposition of two speakers of different languages, or two texts in different languages, is too trivial to count: unless the speakers or the texts interact in some way, there can be no transfer of linguistic features in either direction. Only when there is some interaction does the possibility of a contact explanation for

A quantitative analysis of age-related differences in Hindi–English code-switching

“…In general, the Spanish in Texas corpus appears to have far less switching (as indicated by the low values of M-Index, LE and I-Index), and the switches tend to be irregular and unpredictable, with longer monolingual spans. These results parallel the findings of Cheshire and Gardner-Chloros (1998; see also Gardner-Chloros, 2020), who reported a much greater incidence of various CS phenomena among Punjabi–English than among Greek–Cypriot–English bilinguals living in the United Kingdom. This was considered surprising, given the typological closeness of Greek and English, in comparison to Punjabi and English.…”

“…This was considered surprising, given the typological closeness of Greek and English, in comparison to Punjabi and English. Gardner-Chloros (2020) hypothesized that broader sociolinguistic- factors may be responsible for the differences in the volume and types of CS, with Punjabi–English being seen as more socially acceptable, possibly due to their longer history of contact. A similar argument might also be made for HECS, in comparison to Spanish–English CS in Texas.…”

Scoping Review of Linguistically Responsive Practices for Young Children Who Are Refugees

“…In addition, being a new resident in a new country where the language of instruction may or may not be the same with their home language(s), adjusting to pragmatics of a new language and culture, not being able to speak their home language(s) across people in everyday life, while maintaining their home language(s) and culture could be challenging. Thus, refugee children may have difficulties with the use of code switching, which is known as the use of two or more languages in conversations (Gardner-Chloros, 2020).…”

The Use of Code-Switching by The Speakers on Hima Lingua’s Webinar: Exploring Pedagogical and Affective Functions

“…In a contact situation, code-switching can represent various meanings. Chloros (2020) shows social trends and variations within the same culture and linguistic community. On the side of bilingualism, it is a natural commix for speakers to use one or more communal languages in their utterances (Shafi et al, 2020).…”