See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335858173

Code-switching

Chapter · September 2019

DOI: 10.1515/9783110435351-014

CITATIONS READS

0 3,137

1 author:

Gerald Stell
University of Lausanne
60 PUBLICATIONS 315 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gerald Stell on 01 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 - 157 -

14. Code-switching

4. Acquisition and competence perspectives on code-

1. Historical overview and terminology
switching
2. Linguistic perspectives on code-switching 5. Conclusion
3. Sociolinguistic perspectives on code-switching 6. References

1. Historical overview and terminology

The alternation between languages in speech started receiving specific attention in the post-war years with
Weinreich (1953). ‘Code-switching’ − as Vogt first called it in 1954 − developed into a field cutting across
structural linguistics, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, with boundaries between code-switching proper, and
language variation in general, becoming porous. I refer to ‘code-switching’ as the overt alternation
between languages or varieties. This sets code-switching against the diachronic outcomes of contact known as
‘borrowings’, ‘transfers’, and ‘focusing’, as well as against the concepts of ‘cross-linguistic influence’, ‘transfer’,
and ‘interference’ used in language acquisition research.

-158-

The theorization of code-switching (CS) per se began with Blom and Gumperz (1972) and Gumperz (1982)
establishing the notion that CS performs specific social functions across settings. At a later stage, scholars began
to search for universal grammatical constraints to CS, with Poplack (1980) and Sankoff and Poplack (1981), who,
based on surface structures, proposed the Free Morpheme Constraint and Equivalence Constraint. Subsequent
constraints were formulated based on deep structures, such as the Government Constraint (Di Sciullo, Muysken,
and Singh 1986), Functional Head Constraint (Belazi, Rubin, and Toribio 1994), and the constraints in Myers-
Scotton’s (1993a) Matrix Language Frame model. In contrast, MacSwan (1999, 2005) proposed that nothing
constrains CS, apart from properties of mixed grammars, while Muysken (2000) accounts for grammatical
regularities in CS through both potential grammatical universalia, and factors linked to prestige and competence
levels.

Social context and social structure are evaluated differently by sociolinguists as explanations for CS. For the
Communication Accommodation Theory (Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005) and the Markedness Model (Myers-
Scotton 1993b), CS, and the social meanings that it conveys, is determined by norms of interaction. By contrast,
Gumperz (1982) favors ethnographic views of multilingual behaviors as forming situational identity negotiation
strategies through which norms can be confirmed or undone. Conversation Analysis (CA), finally, views CS as a
marker of conversational structure rather than of social structure (Auer 1998).

Many approaches to CS assume that languages form bounded units that overlap, subject to conditions, such as
that only one language sets the grammatical frame for bilingual clauses (Myers-Scotton 1993a). The emphasis
placed on interlingual boundaries often also facilitates a distinction between CS as an ad hoc phenomenon, and
long-term, conventionalized outcomes of CS in the form of established borrowings – which involve isolated
lexical elements − and transfers − which may involve borrowings and contact-induced grammatical changes
(Clyne 2003; Thomason 2001; see further Treffers-Daller [2009] and Chapter 2 in this volume). The fact that
intensive borrowing and transfer can give rise to ‘mixed languages’ has helped qualify claims that languages
remain separate in interaction, and has ignited interest in ‘ungrammatical’ CS, described as, among other things,
‘congruent lexicalization’ (Muysken 2000). In the ethnographic paradigm, contact phenomena have been placed
in the perspective of (stylistic) repertoires, providing the bedrock for new terminological developments, including
the terms ‘polylanguaging’ and ‘translanguaging’, which now compete with the term CS (Blommaert 2010).

This interest in the psychological dimensions of bilingualism gives CS a place in the study of (second)
language acquisition (SLA), and of broader neuro-cognitive processes. Research on both early language and L2
acquisition characteristically refers to ‘transfers’ and ‘interferences’, which may include CS (see Chapter 15).
Psycholinguistic models of bilingual production have resorted to the concept of ‘language activation’ as a generic
explanation for CS (Clyne 2003; de Bot 1992). Both paradigms use CS to produce insights into the cognitive
separation between the languages of bilinguals.
 This chapter summarizes three approaches to CS: Section 2 treats the linguistic perspective, Section 3 the
sociolinguistic perspective, and Section 4 the psychological perspective.

-159-

2. Linguistic perspectives on code-switching

2.1. Universal constraints on code-switching

From the 1980s onwards, studies of CS became ever more associated with the search for universal grammatical
rules in its forms, as a growing amount of CS data suggested regular structural patterns in CS across language
contact situations. The earliest attempt at formulating universal grammatical constraints of CS was made by
Poplack (1980), who subsumed structural regularities in surface patterns of Spanish-English CS among
New York Puerto Ricans into two grammatical constraints, namely: the Free Morpheme Constraint, which
prohibits switching between free and bound morphemes (such as in the form *eat-iendo, where the Spanish bound
morpheme -iendo is ‘ungrammatically’ affixed to the English stem eat), and the Equivalence Constraint, which
prohibits switching where the two participating languages display no linear equivalence.

Other contact situations provided counterevidence to the universal character of Poplack’s constraints (Clyne
1987; Nortier 1990). While Poplack justified her constraints based on statistical distributions, subsequent
constraints took Universal Grammar principles as a point of departure. The Government Constraint (Di Sciullo,
Muysken, and Singh 1986) holds that the language of the head remains that of its maximal projection
(e.g. a verb must be in the language of its complement). A subsequent influential, government-based constraint
was the more specifically phrased Functional Head Constraint (Belazi, Rubin, and Toribio 1994), which prohibits
CS between functional heads (as opposed to lexical heads) and their complements. A point of criticism recurrently
raised over such constraints, as well as over Poplack’s Equivalence and Free Morpheme constraints, is that they
leave much room for (or in the latter case, openly posit) mechanisms specific to CS, that is, mechanisms operating
independently of the grammars of the participating languages.

Avoiding the need for a ‘Third Grammar’ (Pfaff 1979) has been a consistent motivation behind the formulation
of models of CS within the Universal Grammar paradigm, as exemplified by Woolford (1983), Mahootian (1993),
and Belazi, Rubin, and Toribio (1994). A new scope for fulfilling that motivation came with the Minimalist
Program (MP; Chomsky 1995). By positing that grammatical rules are mediated by lexical items, the MP
facilitates a view of CS, most prominently articulated by MacSwan (1999), as subject to no syntactic constraints
other than those inferable from the grammars of the participating languages. The constraints on CS that MacSwan
(2014) proposes concern, among other things, CS in word-internal contexts, CS between lexical items which
cannot check one another’s grammatical features (e.g. in the Spanish-English example *the casa, where the
English determiner cannot reflect the gender feature carried by Spanish casa), and the syntactic position of
switches (e.g. the language of the verb determines the position of the subject).

Whereas MacSwan posits that lexical choices are made before the syntactic structure of the sentence is laid
out, the Matrix Language Frame model (MLF; Myers-Scotton 1993a) assumes that lexical choices are constrained
by a predefined morphosyntactic frame, which only one language (the Matrix Language [ML]) supplies in
bilingual speech. The MLF differs from other grammatical approaches to CS in that it refers to ‘language
activation’ (see Section 4) to justify the asymmetric distinction it makes between the ML (i.e. the more activated
language), and the Embedded Language (EL), which is found in

-160-

the form of ‘language islands’ in the ML. MLF also posits a hierarchy of insertable elements from Language Y
into Language X, articulated around a distinction between content morphemes and system morphemes, the latter
being less easily insertable from Language Y into Language X outside of language islands (see MacSwan [2005]
for a critique).

Myers-Scotton acknowledged that the MLF cannot predict all grammatical forms of CS. This provided a
justification for the more descriptive approach proposed by Muysken (2000, 2013), who acknowledges four
grammatical types of CS: ‘insertional CS’ involves other-language constituents embedded in one dominant
morphosyntactic frame, ‘alternational CS’ occurs at boundaries between clausal units, ‘congruent lexicalization’
describes CS whereby the morphosyntactic frame cannot be unambiguously assigned to one specific
language, and ‘back-flagging’, finally, refers to the combination of discourse markers from Language X with
utterances in Language Y (Muysken 2013). Instead of phrasing grammatical constraints, Muysken observes
trends: CS involving typologically close languages is more likely to produce insertional CS or congruent
lexicalisation, while CS involving typologically distant languages is more likely to produce alternational CS.

2.2. Code-switching, borrowings, and transfer(ence)s

Determining what is (not) a switch in bilingual speech has been a consistent concern for structural approaches.
Constraint-based models distinguish between CS and borrowing. A widespread early view (Poplack 1980) saw
phonological integration as a feature of borrowings, and a condition for lexical items from a donor language to be
fit into the morphological frame of the host language (thus escaping the Free Morpheme Constraint).
Poplack and her associates subsequently observed that some infrequently occurring donor language lexical items
do not necessarily exhibit phonological adjustment to the host language, while behaving in accordance with its
morphological rules; this led them to the concept of ‘nonce borrowing’, an intermediate category of donor
language items located between code-switches and borrowings (Poplack and Meechan 1995; Poplack, Sankoff,
and Miller 1988).

While accepting a disjunction between phonological and morphological integration, Myers-Scotton (1993a,
2002) contested the rationale behind nonce borrowings, as well as the relevance of an analytical distinction
between borrowing and CS: both borrowings and single-item code-switches are similarly subject to ML
morphological procedures, except in the case of single-item code-switches forming EL islands. In contrast,
Muysken (2000) retains an analytical distinction between borrowing and CS, implying that the two may display
differential levels of integration. One predictor of integration is whether the donor language item is inserted at a
supra- or sublexical level. The other is the frequency-related criterion of ‘listedness’, i.e. the “degree to which a
particular element or structure has become part of a memorized list that has gained acceptance within a particular
speech community” (Muysken 2000: 71).

A theme in discussions of borrowing is the diachronic effect of CS on the host language’s lexicon and structure
(see Chapter 13). Van Coetsem (1988) and Thomason and Kaufman (1988) laid a foundation for this in historical
linguistics. Another point of reference was provided by Muysken’s (1981) ‘Relexification Hypothesis’ in relation
to Media Lengua (an Andean language with a Spanish lexicon and a Quechua grammatical

-161-

frame). The concept of ‘mixed’ languages (Thomason and Kaufman 1988; Bakker 1997) provided a background
for specifically discussing the long-term grammatical effects of CS. Myers-Scotton (1993a) was first to explicitly
place the issue within the perspective of CS via her ‘Matrix Language Turnover Hypothesis’. Frequent insertional
CS can lead to a composite ML straddling the distinctions between the initial ML and EL.

An important factor in ML turnovers, and change in general, is convergence between two interacting
languages, often discussed as a phenomenon connected with language shift. Clyne (2003) describes convergence
as a form of ‘transference’: the process of transferring elements and patterns from one language to another in a
(generally shifting) bilingual community. Convergence, however, may occur without transference, as illustrated
by ‘attrition’, in which a feature present in one language, but not in another, may disappear (also known as
‘levelling’). A major question has been whether CS creates a conduit for convergence, or the other way around.
It is now generally accepted that CS, although it is a potential conduit for convergence, may just as well not bear
any relation to it (Clyne 2003; Myers-Scotton 2002; Thomason 2001).

Convergence has been described not only between languages, but also between closely related varieties, such
as ‘dialects’, that is, varieties “used in a geographically limited part of a language area in which they are ‘roofed’
by a ‘structurally similar standard variety” (Hinskens, Auer, and Kerswill 2005: 1). Studies of dialect contact often
use variationist methodologies to monitor diachronic change, such as ‘koineization’, a process which involves
‘dialect mixing’, ‘levelling’, and ‘simplification’ (Trudgill 2006). The term ‘focusing’ was originally introduced
by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) to capture the reduction of free variation between semantically equivalent
linguistic features in inter-lectal contact situations. ‘Shifting’ or ‘style-shifting’ (Rickford and Eckert 2001) tend
to be used more than CS to refer to the alternation between closely related varieties.

3. Sociolinguistic perspectives on code-switching

3.1. Macro-social perspectives

The first comprehensive sociolinguistic account of CS is attributed to Gumperz (Blom and Gumperz 1972;
Gumperz 1982). His early accounts reflected Fishman’s view that language use is stratified into (H)igh and (L)ow
prestige social functions, which each call for specific varieties with a corresponding prestige index (Fishman
1972). Such an assumption of ‘sociolinguistic indexicalities’ (see Silverstein 2003) is particularly visible in the
way Gumperz (1982) originally described ‘we-codes’ and ‘they-codes’. The former, which index solidarity,
typically coincide with L-varieties, whereas ‘they-codes’, which index distance, typically coincide with H-
varieties. As a result, the alternation between we-codes and they-codes in conversation may convey an alternation
between the two attitudes. The assumption of indexicality featured at the core of several sociolinguistic models
of CS, before its systematic relevance to interpreting CS was called into question (Section 3.2).

The Markedness Model (MM; Myers-Scotton 1993b, 1998) posits sociolinguistic indexicality, distinguishing
between ‘unmarked codes’ and ‘marked codes’ (varieties

-162-

whose situational use reflects or breaks with macro-social conventions, respectively). The alternation between
unmarked and marked codes in exchanges obeys Gricean maxims (Myers-Scotton’s ‘Rights and Obligations sets’,
or ‘RO sets’) which speakers, presented as rational actors, choose to implement (or not). Solidarity-marking codes
(typically L-varieties) may be unmarked in specific social situations, and distance-marking ones (typically H-
varieties) in others. The choice of a marked code over an unmarked one manifests the speaker’s intention to
renegotiate the RO set for the ongoing exchange into one compatible with the values of solidarity (or distance).

Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT; Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005) is another model that operates
on the premise of sociolinguistic indexicality. It describes variation in terms of convergence and divergence,
which can involve CS, and maintenance, which does not. These accommodation behaviors can be read as
responses to, or attempts to negotiate, sociolinguistic differentials: ‘upward’ convergence of A with B, for
example, is predictable when A has a lower social status than B, and will be effected through B’s higher-status
variety. Although it sees sociolinguistic indexicality in accommodation when sociolinguistic differentials are
salient to the interactants, CAT also acknowledges that these behaviors can be psychologically motivated (when
the interactants have affective bonds), or cognitively motivated (when one of the interactants’ default variety is
not necessarily intelligible to the other interactant).

Some macro-sociolinguistic perspectives on CS have focused on the grammatical forms of CS and what they
see as their macrosocial correlates. Muysken (2000) proposed the most comprehensive macro-sociolinguistic
typology of CS forms in tandem with his linguistic typology of CS (see Section 2.1), where insertional and
alternational CS tend to occur in societal contexts marked by equal prestige across languages. By contrast,
congruent lexicalization is characteristic of societal contexts in which one language holds more prestige than the
other, such as in particular postcolonial settings where only the ex-colonizer’s language is official, and indigenous
languages are not (and are typically used in L-functions). Muysken leaves open whether sociolinguistic factors
should be given more importance than linguistic ones in predicting what grammatical form CS is likely to assume.
Macrosocial explanations of grammatical diversity in CS are also found in Poplack (1987), who focuses on
Canadian French-English and Spanish-English CS in the US, and in Treffers-Daller (1999), who compares
Romance-Germanic CS in Strasbourg and Brussels.

Fewer sociolinguistic CS studies focus on social perceptions of CS. Those using matched-guise techniques
overwhelmingly point towards a negative attitude towards CS, as exemplified by Chana and Romaine (1984) with
Punjabi-English CS in the UK, Gibbons (1987) with Chinese-English CS in Hong Kong, and Lawson-Sako and
Sachdev (1996) with French-Arabic CS in Tunisia. Other attitudinal studies within the ethnographic paradigm,
such as Rampton (2014) among immigrant youths in London, or McCormick (2002) among Cape Town
‘Coloureds’, have identified covertly positive attitudes rooted in oppositional identities and resistance. Some
sociolinguistic CS studies also deal with social variables impacting CS, including gender (which Poplack [1980]
correlated with different frequencies and forms of CS in bilingual communities), as well as ethnicity (to some
extent considered jointly with CS in studies of emergent urban ethnolects; see Rampton 2014).

-163-

3.2. Views of CS as a strategy

Sociolinguistics has increasingly focused on CS as an individual strategy deployed independently of macrosocial
conventions. Much of that microsocial focus builds on Gumperz’ ethnographic approach to CS, epitomized in his
functional subdivision of CS (Blom and Gumperz 1972) into ‘situational’ and ‘metaphorical’ CS. In the former,
the act of switching is triggered by external factors, such as changes in settings or in participant constellation. In
the latter, by contrast, the speaker is the main actor; this type further involves the linguistic invocation of different
personae, whose deployment need not be occasioned by situational changes. A function of metaphorical CS that
sets it apart from sociolinguistically indexical types of CS is that of symbolic ‘contextualization’: individual code-
switches may be used as conversational devices to cue new conversational footings, or frames, concepts originally
elaborated by Goffman (1974).

Gumperz contributed the ethnographic notion that both analyst-oriented (or ‘etic’) and member-based (or
‘emic’) perspectives should direct interpretations of language variation. That led researchers to emphasize the
potential disjunction between we-/they-codes and specific varieties. Swigart (1992) and Meeuwis and Blommaert
(1998) found that languages were too mutually imbricated in their African CS data to signal an alternation between
solidarity and distance. The observation that individual switches display varying degrees of pragmatic salience
(and thus carry varying amounts of social meaning) led Auer (1999) to distinguish between ‘language alternation’,
where individual switches possess salience, and ‘language mixing’, where they do not. ‘Language mixing’ may
carry specific social meanings as a whole, and its recurrent observation has justified a radical rethinking of ‘code’
and CS.

Auer (1984) questioned whether CS really is an appropriate generic term to accommodate language mixing.
The acknowledgement of language mixing as a system of its own has motivated a search for a more inclusive
concept. One candidate has been the concept of ‘repertoire’, used in sociolinguistics to refer to the range of ‘styles’
(or ‘registers’ or ‘genres’) at the disposal of individual speakers (Rickford and Eckert 2001). Style has been
understood as a system of ‘consistent’ linguistic features, largely treated as synonymous with ‘variety’ in Labovian
sociolinguistics, but more broadly defined by Irvine (2001: 23) as a “social semiosis of distinctiveness”. Although
Auer (2007) introduced the concept of ‘style’ under the purview of CS studies, the concept of ‘style-shifting’
seems to have been used mostly to describe the modes of alternation between related varieties of one language
(see Section 2.2).

Blommaert (2010) introduced the ‘super-diversity discourse’ into sociolinguistics in combination with a
distinctive sociolinguistic terminological framework centered around the concept of repertoire, set out mainly in
Duarte and Gogolin (2013) and Arnaut et al. (2016). Originally coined by Vertovec (2007), super-diversity refers
to the ‘diversification of diversity’ brought about by the accelerating pace of globalization. One linguistic
consequence of super-diversity, in Blommaert’s view, is the diversification of linguistic resources available in
individual repertoires where the notion of speech community is becoming more elastic. This discourse uses
specific terms to capture the linguistic ‘mixedness’ of contemporary linguistic phenomena, among them
‘translanguaging’ and ‘polylanguaging’. Anchored in Swain’s (2006) theory of language learning, these terms

-164-

describe multilingual practices from the perspective of single system repertoires, within which there cannot be a
question of discrete languages, as the term code-switching implies, following a general view that languages are
essentially ideological constructs (Creese and Blackledge 2015; Jørgensen et al. 2011; see MacSwan [2017] for
a critique).

Distinctive among CS studies, Auer (1984) argued for interpretations of CS within a theoretical framework
based on ethnomethodology and CA, which focuses on conversational mechanisms. Leaning against this
theoretical background, Auer proposes member-based, sequential interpretations of CS which reveal that some
code-switches are endowed with conversation-structuring functions. Subsequent studies that refer to CA tend to
weigh CA interpretations of CS against macrosocial ones (Auer 1998).

4. Acquisition and competence perspectives on code-switching

The study of how bilingual competence develops has mostly been associated with second language acquisition
(SLA) research and bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA) (see Chapter 16). SLA originally bore the
theoretical imprint of behaviorism by according much importance to the L1 in the L2 learning process. In the
behaviorist view (Lado 1957), the L1 is present in L2 production in the form of ‘transfers’, which may be ‘positive’
(facilitating the replication of an L2 pattern), or ‘negative’ (leading to production errors, commonly referred to as
‘interference’). The next influential theoretical framework in SLA was articulated around the Chomskyan
assumption of an innate language building faculty, programmatically formulated by Selinker (1972) for his
‘interlanguage hypothesis’. Adherents have characteristically focused on bilingual child language acquisition, and
dwelt on errors not attributable to interferences, a term which Slobin (1985) has since replaced with the more
neutral ‘cross-linguistic influence’.

Under names such as ‘code-mixing’, ‘mixing’, or ‘borrowing’, CS has been discussed from a language
acquisition perspective largely to determine how languages are simultaneously acquired in childhood (De Houwer
2009). Volterra and Taeschner (1978) contended that children exposed to two languages initially do not
distinguish between them, and accordingly engage in unconstrained CS. Despite occasional supporting evidence
(Bader and Minnis 2000; Tracy 2000), the notion of a single system has been contested, based on indications that
language separation and CS are subject to the parents’ bilingual practices (Goodz 1994; Lanza 1997) and to the
availability to children of translation equivalents (Deuchar and Quay 2000). Besides, Comeau, Genesee, and
Lapaquette (2003) found that children interactionally adjust their CS patterns to those of their interlocutors,
suggesting that bilingual children distinguish between their languages from early on.

Within the neuro-cognitive framework of language acquisition, Grosjean’s (2001) model of bilingual language
production had perhaps the strongest impact on CS typologies. His central notion is that of ‘mode’, itself rooted
in the imagery of language activation: bilinguals can linguistically behave in ‘monolingual mode’, in which case
they keep their languages separate in speech production, or in ‘bilingual mode’, in which case their languages
alternate in production. Grosjean’s notion of ‘modes’ underlies Myers-Scotton’s MLF, in which the matrix
language is presented as the more activated language

-165-

(see Section 2.1). Myers-Scotton and Jake’s (2016) subsequent 4-M model further elaborates the psycholinguistic
underpinnings of the MLF by defining constraints to CS in relation to the differential levels of activation of the
four categories of morphemes between which it distinguishes. Another attempt at incorporating psycholinguistic
notions into the grammatical modelling of CS is subsumed in Clyne’s (2003) ‘triggering hypothesis’, which posits
that two, related languages can activate one another, producing congruent lexicalization (Section 2.1.).

Although psycholinguistic CS research traditionally rests on tasks administered within controlled laboratory
settings (Gullberg, Indefrey, and Muysken 2009), some studies in the paradigm pay attention to the role played
by interactional and social factors in the occurrence of CS. Along these lines, Kootstra, van Hell, and Dijkstra
(2010) account for CS as an outcome of language co-activation facilitated by not only triggering effects produced
by lexical and syntactic similarities across languages, but also by discourse-situational and socio-interactive
factors (i.e. what they call ‘interactive alignment’; see Branigan et al. 2007). Rather than looking at CS for the
sake of determining the degrees of separation between bilingual children’s languages, some BFLA studies have
looked at it in conjunction with its developing socio-pragmatic functions, such as addressee specification (Ervin-
Tripp and Reyes 2005; Lanvers 2001), or turn-allocation (Cromdal 2001). BFLA research also has developed an
ethnographic strand relying on long-term observation of classroom interactions, exemplified by Weber (2009) and
Cheng (2003).

5. Conclusion

Much theoretical discussion on CS so far has centered on how much one should posit a surface or deep-level
distinction between languages occurring in bilingual speech. Tentative answers have typically been forthcoming
from discrete theoretical perspectives that rely on seemingly incompatible methodologies. Researchers in the field
of CS studies should consider more attempts at cross-validation between its constitutive paradigms via
multidisciplinary approaches to data collection and analysis.

6. References

Arnaut, Karel, Martha Sif Karrebæk, Massimiliano Spotti & Jan Blommaert (eds.) 2016 Engaging superdiversity:
Recombining spaces, times and language practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Auer, Peter 1984 Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Auer, Peter 1998 Introduction: Bilingual Conversation revisited. In Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in
conversation: Language, interaction and identity, 1−24. London: Routledge.
Auer, Peter 1999 From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology
of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism 3(4). 309−332.
Auer, Peter (ed.) 2007 Style and social identities: Alternative approaches to linguistic heterogeneity. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

-166-

Bader, Yousef & Denise D. Minnis 2000 Morphological and syntactic code-switching in the speech of an Arabic-
English bilingual child. Multilingua 19(4). 383−403.
Bakker, Peter 1997 A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the
Canadian Métis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Belazi, Hedi M., Edward J. Rubin & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio 1994 Code-switching and X-bar theory: The
functional head constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 25(2). 221−237.
Blom, Jan-Petter & John J. Gumperz 1972 Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In
John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics, 407−434. New York: Holt.
Blommaert, Jan 2010 The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, Janet F. McLean & Alexandra A. Cleland 2007 Syntactic alignment and
participant role in dialogue. Cognition 104(2). 163−197.
Chana, Urmi & Suzanne Romaine 1984 Evaluative reactions to Panjabi/English code-switching. Journal of
Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 5(6). 447−453.
Cheng, Karen Kow Yip 2003 Code-switching for a purpose: Focus on pre-school Malaysian children. Multilingua
22(1). 59−77.
Chomsky, Noam 1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clyne, Michael 1987 Constraints on code switching: How universal are they? Linguistics 25(4). 739−764.
Clyne, Michael 2003 Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Comeau, Liane, Fred Genesee & Lindsay Lapaquette 2003 The modelling hypothesis and child bilingual
codemixing. International Journal of Bilingualism 7(2). 113−126.
Creese, Angela & Adrian Blackledge 2015 Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics 35. 20–35.
Cromdal, Jakob 2001 Overlap in bilingual play: Some implications of code-switching for overlap resolution.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(4). 421−451.
de Bot, Kees 1992 A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics
13(1). 1−24.
De Houwer, Annick 2009 Bilingual first language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Deuchar, Margaret & Suzanne Quay 2000 Bilingual acquisition: Theoretical implications of a case study. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Di Sciullo, Anne-Maria, Pieter Muysken & Rajendra Singh 1986 Government and code-mixing. Journal of
Linguistics 22(1). 1−24.
Duarte, Joana & Ingrid Gogolin 2013 Linguistic superdiversity in urban areas: Research approaches.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.

-167-

Ervin-Tripp, Susan & Iliana Reyes 2005 Child codeswitching and adult content contrasts. International Journal
of Bilingualism 9(1). 85−102.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1972 The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language
in
society. Rowley: Newbury House.
Gallois, Cindy, Tania Ogay & Howard Giles 2005 Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a
look ahead. In William Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication, 121−148. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
Gibbons, John 1987 Code-mixing and code-choice: A Hong Kong case study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Goffman, Erving
1974 Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Goodz, Naomi S. 1994 Interaction between parents and children in bilingual families. In Fred Genesee (ed.),
Educating second language children, 61−81. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grosjean, François 2001 The bilingual’s language modes. In Janet L. Nicol (ed.), One mind, two languages:
Bilingual language processing, 1−23. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gullberg, Marianne, Peter Indefrey & Pieter Muysken 2009 Research techniques for the study of code-switching.
In Barbara E. Bullock & Almeida J. Toribio (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of code-switching, 21−39.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John. J. 1982 Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinskens, Frans, Peter Auer & Paul Kerswill 2005 The study of dialect convergence and divergence: Conceptual
and methodological considerations. In Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens & Paul Kerswill (eds.), Dialect change:
Convergence
and divergence in European languages, 1−48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Irvine, Judith T. 2001 “Style” as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In
Penelope Eckert & John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation, 21−43. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jørgensen, J. Normann, Martha S. Karrebæk, Lian M. Madsen & Janus S. Møller 2011 Polylanguaging in
superdiversity. Diversities 14(2). 23–38.
Kootstra, Gerrit Jan, Janet G. van Hell & Ton Dijkstra 2010 Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-
switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue. Journal of Memory and
Language 63(2).
210−231.
Lado, Robert 1957 Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Lanvers, Ursula 2001 Language alternation in infant bilinguals: A developmental approach to codeswitching.
International Journal of Bilingualism 5(4). 437−464.

-168-

Lanza, Elisabeth 1997 Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Lawson-Sako, Sarah & Itesh Sachdev 1996 Ethnolinguistic communication in Tunisian streets. In Yasir Suleiman
(ed.), Language and ethnic identity in the Middle East and North Africa, 61−79. Richmond: Curzon
Press.
Le Page Robert B. & Andrée Tabouret-Keller 1985 Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and
ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacSwan, Jeff 1999 A minimalist approach to intrasentential code-switching. New York: Garland.
MacSwan, Jeff 2005 Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks
on ‘modified minimalism’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8(1). 1−22.
MacSwan, Jeff 2014 Programs and proposals in codeswitching research: Unconstraining theories of bilingual
language mixing. In Jeff MacSwan (ed.), Grammatical theory and bilingual codeswitching,
1−34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MacSwan, Jeff 2017 A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal
54(1). 167−201.
Mahootian, Shahrzad 1993 A null theory of code switching. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.
McCormick, Kay 2002 Language in Cape Town’s District Six. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meeuwis, Michael & Jan Blommaert 1998 A monolectal view of code-switching: Layered code-switching among
Zairians. In Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, 76−98.
London: Routledge.
Muysken, Pieter 1981 Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In Arnold Highfield
& Albert Valdman (eds.), Historicity and variation in creole studies, 52−78. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Muysken, Pieter
2000 Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muysken, Pieter 2013 Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 16(4). 1−22.
Myers-Scotton, Carol 1993a Duelling languages: Grammatical structures in code-switching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Myers-Scotton, Carol 1993b Social motivations in code-switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon.
Myers-Scotton, Carol (ed.) 1998 Codes and consequences: Choosing linguistic varieties. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Myers-Scotton, Carol 2002 Contact Linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 -169-

Myers-Scotton, Carol & Janice L. Jake 2016 Revisiting the 4-M model: Codeswitching and morpheme election
at the abstract level. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3). 340−366.
Nortier, Jacomine 1990 Dutch-Moroccan Arabic code switching. Dordrecht: Foris.
Pfaff, Carol W. 1979 Constraints on language-mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish-
English. Language 55(2). 291−318.
Poplack, Shana 1980 Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español: Toward a typology
of code-switching. Linguistics 18(7−8). 581−618.
Poplack, Shana 1987 Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities. In Erling Wande, Jan
Anward, Bengt Nordberg, Lars Steensland & Mats Thelander (eds.), Aspects of multilingualism:
proceedings from the fourth Nordic symposium on bilingualism, 1984, 51−77. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.
Poplack, Shana, David Sankoff & Christopher Miller 1988 The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical
borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26(1). 47−104.
Poplack, Shana & Marjory Meechan 1995 Patterns of language mixture: nominal structure in Wolof-French and
Fongbe-French bilingual discourse. In Lesley Milroy & Pieter Muysken (eds.), One speaker, two languages:
Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, 199−232. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rampton, Ben 2014 Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Routledge.
Rickford, John R. & Penelope Eckert 2001 Introduction. In Penelope Eckert & John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and
sociolinguistic variation, 1−18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sankoff, David & Shana Poplack 1981 A formal grammar for code-switching. Papers in Linguistics 14(1). 3−45.
Selinker, Larry 1972 Interlanguage. IRAL 10. 209−231.
Silverstein, Michael 2003 Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication
23(3−4). 193−229.
Slobin, Dan I. 1985 Crosslinguistic evidence for the Language-Making Capacity. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The
crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues, 1157−1256.
Hillsdale: Erlbaum
Swain, Merrill 2006 Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In Heidi
Byrnes (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vigotsky,
95−108. London: Continuum.
Swigart, Leigh 1992 Two codes or one? The insiders’ view and the description of codeswitching in Dakar.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13(1−2). 83−102.
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001 Language contact: An introduction. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.

-170-

Tracy, Rosemarie 2000 Language mixing as a challenge for linguistics. In Susanne Döpke (ed.), Cross-linguistic
structures in simultaneous bilingualism, 11−36. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Treffers-Daller, Jeanine 1999 Borrowing and shift-induced interference: Contrasting patterns in French-Germanic
contact
in Brussels and Strasbourg. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(1). 1−22.
Treffers-Daller, Jeanine 2009 Code-switching and transfer: An exploration of similarities and differences. In
Barbara
E. Bullock & Almeida Jacqueline Torribio (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic
code-switching, 58−74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trudgill, Peter 2006 New-dialect formation: The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
van Coetsem, Frans 1988 Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.
Vertovec, Steven 2007 Super-diversity and its implications. Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6). 1024−
1054.
Vogt, Hans 1954 Language contacts. Word 10(2−3). 365−374.
Volterra, Virginia & Troute Taeschner 1978 The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children.
Journal of Child Language 5(2). 311−326.
Weber, Jean-Jacques 2009 Multilingualism, education and change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Weinreich, Uriel 1953 Languages in contact: Findings and problems (= Publications of the Linguistic Circle
of New York 1). New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.
Woolford, Ellen 1983 Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14(3). 520−536.
 Gerald Stell, Hong Kong

View publication stats