Code-switching or Borrowing? No sé so no puedo decir, you know - PDF

Description
Code-switching or Borrowing? No sé so no puedo decir, you know John M. Lipski The Pennsylvania State University 1. Introduction In the study of bilingual code-switching, identifying the typology and language

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 16
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Memoirs

Publish on:

Views: 15 | Pages: 16

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
Code-switching or Borrowing? No sé so no puedo decir, you know John M. Lipski The Pennsylvania State University 1. Introduction In the study of bilingual code-switching, identifying the typology and language of individual switched elements has generally proceeded from theoretical models involving the identification of a base language and the phrase structure of both languages. Such fundamental notions as word order, the language of functional heads, relations of syntactic government, and purely quantitative measures of the amount of material in each language have variously been used to classify language switching within a single clause. The formal study of bilingual code-switching with Spanish-English bilingualism receiving high prominence has enjoyed more than three decades of serious activity, incorporating the intersection of sociolinguistics and variationist models, syntactic theory, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, and literary and cultural studies. After more than three decades of research on Spanish-English code-switching it might seem that there is little left to explore; there are, however, some phenomena that do not fit easily into current typologies, and one such manifestation will be explored in the present study. An accepted axiom of Spanish-English code-switching is that there are clear quantitative and qualitative differences among the language switches of fluent bilinguals, Spanish-speaking immigrants who learned English in adolescence or adulthood, and native speakers of English who have acquired Spanish as a L 2. The first group is most noted for intrasentential code-switching and for the use of language switches to achieve pragmatic ends such as foregrounding, ethnic solidarity, persuasion, and the like. Calques of idiomatic expressions in English are frequent when speaking Spanish, with fewer cases of Spanish calques in English discourse, and numerous loans from English are present. Spanishspeaking immigrants typically switch only at major discourse boundaries such as sentences and paragraphs, usually in response to shifting domains of discourse. Calques from English are rare and English lexical items are usually inserted in non-assimilated fashion. English-speaking students of Spanish switch to English primarily when their abilities in Spanish are exceeded by the demands of a particular communicative task, and often show less sensitivity to the linguistic abilities and preferences of their interlocutors. Calques from English are common, including combinations that violate Spanish syntactic rules, and unassimilated English words may be freely inserted whenever the Spanish word is unknown. Seldom does a single type of language shifting span all three groups of nominally bilingual speakers. The reasons for these qualitative differences constitute a major research question, as does the related issue of what the bilingual grammars of all three groups of speakers have in common. 2. The study of Spanish-English code-switching in the United States Grammatical constraints on Spanish-English language switching formed the basis for some of the earliest and most influential studies of bilingual code mixing, and form part of the core bibliography to this day. A number of specific claims about the grammatical structures of allowable code-switches emerged from these early studies, and were frequently extrapolated to include other instances of bilingual usage. As the number of individual case studies grew including languages from widely differing families such as Korean, Japanese, Tagalog, Arabic, Hebrew, Cantonese, Berber, Nahuatl, and Polish, among many others it became apparent that the close typological similarity between Spanish and English facilitated fluent intrasentential code-switching of a sort not as often found when typologically very different languages are switched. While none of the syntactic claims made for 2005 John M. Lipski. Selected Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, ed. Lotfi Sayahi and Maurice Westmoreland, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 2 Spanish-English code-switching has been invalidated, some of the proposed restrictions cannot be easily extended beyond the Spanish-English interface. Moreover the effortless interweaving of languages within a single clause occurs more frequently and with a higher density among Spanish- English bilinguals in the United States than in communities involving similar Romance languages in contact with English: French-English in Canada and Louisiana, Italian-English in the northeastern United States, and even Spanish-English in Gibraltar 1 and creole English-Spanish in Belize. 2 Thus to the syntactic peculiarities of Spanish-English code-switching must be added an as yet not fully understood set of sociolinguistic variables that facilitate high density intransentential switching among most bilingual Latino communities in the United States. 3. The status of switched functional words Sitting firmly astride the boundary between borrowing and code-switching are cases involving insertion of non-assimilated L 2 functional elements particularly conjunctions in the midst of L 1 discourse. If such insertion becomes frequent, full grammaticalization of the borrowed functional item may be the end result. A number of indigenous languages that have coexisted with Spanish for long periods of time have fully incorporated Spanish functional words, at times producing syntactic innovations that depart significantly from the base structures of the borrowing language. Thus Tagalog has pirmi firme `always,' para (sa) `for the benefit of' (e.g. Ito ay álaala ko para sa aking iná `this is my gift for my mother'), puwede `can, may, [to be] possible' gustó `like, desire,' siguro `maybe,' por eso, pero, puwés pues `therefore,' etc. (Oficina de Educación Iberoamericana 1972). The related Philippine language Cebuano (of the Visayan group) also contains: peró pero, para, etc., (Quilis 1976). Contemporary Mexican Náhuatl contains such well-integrated items as porque, que, de, por, para, pero, tlen tanto `how much,' para tlenon `why,' cerca, ya, maske `although,' pos, como, hasta, después, apenas, entonces, solo, etc. 3 Karttunen and Lockhart (1976:35-39) give an analysis of the introduction of Spanish particles and connective elements in early colonial Náhuatl. According to their perspective, Náhuatl borrowed Spanish particles because they functioned differently than their closest Náhuatl equivalents: `Since Nahuatl achieved its ends with quite dissimilar means, a Spanish particle usually had a different semantic domain and different syntactic characteristics. This could be seen as a reason for introduction, especially when more and more Nahuatl speakers came to hear Spanish daily and felt the need for equivalents' (36). They also observe that in Nahuatl, the same items usually have the dual function of modal particles and connectives, while prepositions come from a different set. In Spanish, modal particles form a separate category, while connectives and prepositions frequently come from the same set (e.g. hasta que, para que, etc.): `It was the prepositions/connectives that were new to Nahuatl. The Nahuatl adverbials, including the modal particles, already covered the Spanish modals, and we do not find loanwords among our examples like muy very or quizá perhaps ... (36). The borrowing of Spanish prepositions is particularly interesting, since classical Náhuatl (and to a very large degree the contemporary language as well) is a pospositional language. Another major language contact zone is the Andean region, where Spanish has coexisted with Quechua and related languages for five centuries. Quechua is also a postpositional OV-type language, and various Quechua dialects contain the following functional elements from Spanish: porque, i, en, si, entós entonces, después, pero, que (complementizer), komo, para, por, de, astake hasta que, pues, etc. (e.g. Lastra 1968). Mayan-speaking Mesoamerica (Mexican Yucatan, Belize, and most of Guatemala), is another contemporary language contact area. Contemporary Mayan languages, which are noteworthy for their overall resistance to absorbing Spanish loan-words, make use of many Spanish functional words, including: de, y, a, pero, mientras, como, con, entonces, menos, porque. 1 E.g. Lipski (1986a), Moyer (1992). 2 Lipski (1986b). 3 Cf. Karttunen (1985), Karttunen and Lockhart (1976), Lastra de Suárez (1986), Suárez (1977), and the transcribed conversations and analyses of Hill and Hill (1986) and Lastra de Suárez (1980). In particular, Hill and Hill (1986: chap. 6) give an extensive analysis of the incorporation of Spanish particles into contemporary Náhuatl. These words occur even in relatively isolated and marginal Mayan languages, many of whose speakers are not fully fluent in Spanish. 4 Many of these functional borrowings had already been incorporated into Yucatecan Mayan within a century of the arrival of the Spaniards. 5 The functional elements borrowed from Spanish into these indigenous languages have several traits in common: (1) None represents a grammatical configuration already present in the indigenous language. Not only the linear word order but also the grammatical relationships are usually modified upon borrowing. (2) These borrowed elements do not normally replace an already existent element in the indigenous language, but rather create new configurations. (3) The borrowed elements become fully integrated syntactically and morphologically into the receptor languages, often diverging sharply from their semantic and syntactic content within Spanish. (4) The borrowed items are used consistently and exclusively, and many speakers are unaware of their origins in Spanish; the borrowed elements are also used by monolingual speakers of the indigenous languages. (5) The integrated borrowed functional items are not a natural concomitant of code-switched discourse, and are equally common among totally monolingual speakers or when no Spanish is being used. 4. The insertion of English so and similar items into Spanish-only discourse Some insight into the issues surrounding the interface between code-switching and borrowing in the case of functional elements can be obtained by observation of incipient language change. In such circumstances, it may be possible to determine the factors that facilitate the seamless introduction of L 2 functional elements into an expanse of L 1 discourse. One apparent change in progress involves the insertion of English so into monolingual Spanish discourse. Other commonly inserted items include but, anyway, you know, I mean, with somewhat different pragmatic distribution. This phenomenon occurs in the speech of a wide variety of Spanish-English bilinguals in the United States, cutting across the entire spectrum of bilingual abilities, from Spanish-dominant speakers through balanced bilinguals, to highly English-dominant `semi-speakers' of Spanish. It is found in the speech of many individuals who disavow any conscious use of Anglicisms. It has also been observed in the speech of Spanish speakers born and raised outside of the United States, and who became bilingual upon learning English in the United States. Of the bilingual speakers who introduce so into Spanish discourse, some freely engage in various forms of code-switching when speaking informally to other bilingual interlocutors, while others seldom or never do so. Finally, so-insertion is found in the speech of native speakers of English who are acquiring Spanish as a second language, and whose abilities in Spanish range from rudimentary to quite fluent. Typically, second-language speakers of Spanish, regardless of the level of fluency in Spanish, do not engage in code-switching of the sort observed among true bilinguals, and those instances of language switching which do occur among second-language speakers are qualitatively different from patterns found among fluent bilinguals. So-insertion is one of the few bilingual switching phenomena to occur in both bilingual and second-language speech. The incorporation of so potentially represents a window of opportunity, highlighting the means by which functional elements from one language gradually insert themselves into another language during bilingual encounters Collecting the data As with any form of spontaneous speech phenomenon, the insertion of so must be caught on the fly, extracted from fragments of free conversation and analyzed without recourse to conscious 3 4 Hofling (1991:9) and passim., and the texts in Furbee-Losee (1976). 5 Karttunen and Lockhart (1985:63-65). 6 So-insertion also occurs in other bilingual contact environments, for example in Louisiana French and Canadian French (Roy 1979), and Japanese-English (Nishimura 1986). I have also observed this phenomenon in the speech of Haitian-English bilinguals. 4 intuitions and introspection by native speakers. So-insertion will be treated like a limiting case of intrasentential code-switching, in which speakers cannot be `primed' to produce appropriate examples, and are frequently unaware of having inserted so, even after the fact. In the case of intrasentential code-switching, some researchers have attempted to supplement their observations by presenting native code-switchers with contrived examples of switched discourse, to elicit acceptability judgments. In the case of so-insertion, this procedure has so far failed to produce any usable results. I have yet to encounter a bilingual speaker who possesses any intuitions about this phenomenon; indeed, only a tiny fraction of the bilingual speakers with whom I have spoken seem to be aware of this process, even after having listened to recorded examples. When presented with transcribed or contrived Spanish sentences in which so or similar items have been inserted, all bilinguals that I have interviewed reject such sentences as unacceptable, although when pressed many will admit to having heard such combinations. Most of the cases to be discussed here come from my personal collection of recordings, in this case representing nearly 1000 tapes of the Spanish and English usage of bilingual speakers throughout the United States. There are also examples taken from published sources, which coincide qualitatively with the recorded texts. Perhaps two thirds of the recordings were made by me personally, and the remainder were conducted by students working under my supervision. All the data were collected as part of earlier research efforts or as class projects, prior to the decision to study soinsertion. Therefore none of the interviews was affected by prior expectations as to the data to be elicited. The recorded interviews were chosen randomly from the larger collection. The level of fluency in Spanish and English varies widely among the speakers included in the sample. Some are completely fluent in both languages, nearly balanced bilinguals. Others speak little English, while still others are Spanish-recessive bilinguals. Some of the speakers are known to frequently engage in codeswitching, while other speakers seldom or never do so. A wide variety of attitudes toward Spanish and English is also represented in the sample, but as will be seen, even speakers with a markedly negative attitude toward English may engage in so-insertion. The non-native speakers of Spanish included in the sample are all native speakers of English, and all learned Spanish after adolescence, in a variety of circumstances which include formal instruction, foreign travel, volunteer and work experience, and marriage. Fluency in Spanish ranges from halting speech to total mastery. 6. The status of inserted so Before examining specific cases of so-insertion en route to a model of language change, the status of such inserted items must be discussed. In a survey of Anglicisms in U. S. varieties of Spanish, Mendieta (1999:144-5) considers so to be a `préstamo no adaptado and gives examples, including some from Teschner (1972) and Phillips (1967): Una vez íbamos a México y tenía que ir pa l baño so nos fuimos para una gasolinera (San Antonio) Pero los niños creen que la madre es lo único que lo va a ayudar o curar, so mi mamá estuvo allí aguantándome la mano (Miami) El pega más bueno que yo, so juega él (Phillips 1967:643). Phillips (1967: 643) and Teschner (1972:580, 719) also give examples of inserted or, I mean, and when: Lo agarran or en veces en español... Pero en ese tiempo no había bastantes trabajo, y después de la... como de treinta y dos, or por ahí, era y más o menos estamos ahí esperando si MacArthur iba a decir si entramos, y or no, so más o menos no entramos, so fuimos a que usan parar hacer un edificio or los niños para jugar Y ya, como el dinero, I mean, la escuela se está poniendo muy caro Aquí un laborer gana dos sesenta, I mean, cuatro sesenta la hora Well, I mean, me enfermé de... de eso de... de flue, con gripa y eso 5 Lloraba when hacía tangle... Mendieta (1999:105, 113) considers anyway and but to also be unassimilated borrowings, with the following examples (also Teschner 1972:262-3): No sé, para proteger la, quizá, la gente, para que no pase más de allí o quizá pasan anyway, so... (Perth Amboy, NJ) Se sienten que no quieren ir a la escuelo pero [quieren] ir, anyway (Perth Amboy, NJ) El muchacho pequeño está enfrente, no, está al frente de la mesa, but... (San Antonio) Es bueno pa un soltero, but no me pesó tanto pa que... (Teschner 1972:263) Pues de la policía no he tenido quejas. Anyway, yo no he necesitado de ellos todavía (Teschner 1972:157) Anyway como en el inglés, hay muchas palabras del pachuco en inglés que se usa (Teschner 1972:157) Teschner (1972:896) indicates that so was frequent in his Chicago corpus, collected in the 1960 s, pronounced with Spanish phonetic patterns in unstressed position and with English phonetics in stressed positions: es un poco difícil encontrar trabajo en Los Ángeles y papá no pudo establecerse, so nos fuimos entonces para México. Compramos una casa cerca de la [calle] 45 te dije antes? So [sou] antes teníamos una pader entera, y mi esposa quería... So [sou] este año le dieron cuando... le da un scholarship... No hay naiden que les dé trabajo; necesitan vivir, so se meten a robar.... y tengo que pensar por el futuro de esa niña, so no puedo derrochar el dinero así y yo soy el mayor de la familia. So yo tuve que ir a trabajar.... y que hay otro niño que quiere tener ese lugar. So [sou], tiene el padre que... Teschner (1972:1031-2) also gives examples of inserted you know: Porque todos necesitamos de todo un día, Porque todos necesitamos de todo un día, you know, aunque no lo reconózcamos Pues, el bate es... you know... un palo de madera que... Pues no me he dado cuenta, porque realmente lo he ido aprendiendo, you know, es una palabra... Una película que tenga un tema, you know, Ud. sabe, un tema especial......para tener más lugar, o para tener más, you know, más espacio para la familia Pues allí hubo muchos desórdenes, you know. A uno de mis muchachos,... Y en estos temblores que han habido últimamente, se han desbaratado los, you know, the... se han venido para abajo, se han sentado....prefiere que traigas al esposo para que trabaje y todo, en vez de darte, you know, help. Mucho cuidado con la fumada; cáncer, cáncer, you know. Silva-Corvalán (1994:171), commenting on the use of so in Los Angeles Spanish, states briefly that it is `a loan that replaces the Spanish conjunction así que even in the speech of Group I [Mexicanborn: JML] speakers. It is a stable, widespread loan in LA Spanish...' Typical examples are similar to those found in the present study, e.g. So él sabrá si se cambia su mente (Silva-Corvalán 1994:173). Silva-Corvalán does not pursue this matter further, but her study gives no other case where a conjunction or other functional i
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks