File size: 115,715 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 | {
"paper_id": "P98-1002",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:18:23.013372Z"
},
"title": "The production of code-mixed discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sankoff",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "Centre de recherches math~matiques",
"institution": "Succursale Centre-Ville Montr@al",
"location": {
"postCode": "6128, H3C 3J7",
"region": "CP, Qudbec"
}
},
"email": "sankoff@ere.umontreal.ca"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We propose a comprehensive theory of codemixed discourse, encompassing equivalencepoint and insertional code-switching, palindromic constructions and lexical borrowing. The starting point is a production model of code-switching accounting for empirical observations about switch-point distribution (the equivalence constraint), well-formedness of monolingual fragments, conservation of constituent structure and lack of constraint between successive switch points, without invoking any \"code-switching grammar\". Codeswitched sentence production makes alternate reference to two virtual monolingual sentences, one in each language, and is based on conservative conditions on language labeling of constituents, together with a constraint against real-time \"look-ahead\" from one code-switch to the next. Selective weakening of model conditions can produce (i) the type of palindromic (or portmanteau) construction occasionally occurring e.g., in switches between prepositional and postpositional languages, (ii) the switching by \"insertion\" of very specific kinds of constituent reported e.g., for French noun phrases in switching with Arabic and, most important, (iii) lexical borrowing. Borrowing can create ambiguity as to language membership of sentence items, but the model predicts where this can be resolved, and the confirmation of these predictions, based on empirical studies of inflectional morphology, validates key aspects of the model.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P98-1002",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We propose a comprehensive theory of codemixed discourse, encompassing equivalencepoint and insertional code-switching, palindromic constructions and lexical borrowing. The starting point is a production model of code-switching accounting for empirical observations about switch-point distribution (the equivalence constraint), well-formedness of monolingual fragments, conservation of constituent structure and lack of constraint between successive switch points, without invoking any \"code-switching grammar\". Codeswitched sentence production makes alternate reference to two virtual monolingual sentences, one in each language, and is based on conservative conditions on language labeling of constituents, together with a constraint against real-time \"look-ahead\" from one code-switch to the next. Selective weakening of model conditions can produce (i) the type of palindromic (or portmanteau) construction occasionally occurring e.g., in switches between prepositional and postpositional languages, (ii) the switching by \"insertion\" of very specific kinds of constituent reported e.g., for French noun phrases in switching with Arabic and, most important, (iii) lexical borrowing. Borrowing can create ambiguity as to language membership of sentence items, but the model predicts where this can be resolved, and the confirmation of these predictions, based on empirical studies of inflectional morphology, validates key aspects of the model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Communities of bilinguals tend to evolve a conversational mode where elements of both languages appear in the same interaction and even in the same sentence despite the fact that all participants may be competent in either of the two languages. Whether this mode is used in preference to monolingual discourse depends on the type of interaction, the participants, the subject of conversation and many other factors. The grammatical nature of code-mixed discourse, however, tends to be very specific to the community and varies widely among bilingual communities, even among communities which share the same pair of languages. Empirical research has isolated four clearly distinct processes which may be responsible for mixing to different extents in different communities --code-switching, nonce borrowing, specialized incorporation and interference. None of these processes requires the deformation, alteration or convergence of either of the two constituent languages at the syntactic, lexical, morphological, phonological, or semantic levels at the moment the mixing occurs. Except for codeswitching, however, they may all lead in the long term to lexical expansion in one or both of the languages.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This paper is a contribution to a coherent formal account of code-mixing which integrates all of these processes 1, though only code-switching and borrowing will be considered here. This is based on a series of empirical studies which now allows us to distinguish between them structurally and quantitatively. Our starting point will be a recent formal characterization of a equivalence-point code-switching (Sankoff, 1The analysis of code-mixing is a controversial subject with respect to several aspects: Is all code-mixing --borrowing, switching, interference --really the same process? Do languages involved in code-mixing tend to converge syntactically? Are patterns of code-mixing predictable or explicable by theories of (monolingual) grammar? We assume a negative response to all these questions and refer to the literature for more detailed discussion. 1998). We will then extend this to two rarer code-switching mechanisms, and finally to lexical borrowing, the most frequent type of codemixing.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 408,
"end": 417,
"text": "(Sankoff,",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1 Code-switching 1.1 \"The facts\"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The modern motivation for studying codeswitching was initially to explain the observation that in bilingual communities, speakers tend to switch from one language to another intrasententially at certain syntactic boundaries and not at others (Gumperz & Hernandez, 1969) . The first general explanation to account for this distribution was Poplack's (1978 Poplack's ( , 1980 argument that switching should be favored at the kinds of syntactic boundaries which occur in both languages, thus avoiding word order that might seem unnatural according to one or both grammars: the equivalence constraint (see also Lipski, 1977; Pfaff, 1979) . Despite criticism of this approach (Rivas, 1981; Woolford, 1983; Di Sciullo et al., 1986; Pandit, 1990; Myers-Scotton, 1993; Belazi et al., 1994; Mahootian & Santorini, 1994) , it has been successfully used to account for code-switching in Spanish-English (Poplack, 1978 (Poplack, ,1980 , Finnish-English (Poplack et al., 1987b) , Arabic-French (Na'it M'Barek & Sankoff, 1988) , Tamil-English (Sankoff et al., 1990) , Fongbe-French , Wolof-French , Igbo-English (Eze, 1997) and many other bilingual communities.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 242,
"end": 269,
"text": "(Gumperz & Hernandez, 1969)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 354,
"text": "Poplack's (1978",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 373,
"text": "Poplack's ( , 1980",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 607,
"end": 620,
"text": "Lipski, 1977;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 633,
"text": "Pfaff, 1979)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 684,
"text": "(Rivas, 1981;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 685,
"end": 700,
"text": "Woolford, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 725,
"text": "Di Sciullo et al., 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 726,
"end": 739,
"text": "Pandit, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 760,
"text": "Myers-Scotton, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 761,
"end": 781,
"text": "Belazi et al., 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 810,
"text": "Mahootian & Santorini, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 892,
"end": 906,
"text": "(Poplack, 1978",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 907,
"end": 922,
"text": "(Poplack, ,1980",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 941,
"end": 964,
"text": "(Poplack et al., 1987b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 967,
"end": 1012,
"text": "Arabic-French (Na'it M'Barek & Sankoff, 1988)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1029,
"end": 1051,
"text": "(Sankoff et al., 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1109,
"text": "(Eze, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Other fundamental facts about code-switched sentences include the well-formedness of monolingual fragments within such sentences --true whether a fragment constitutes a complete constituent or stretches across two or more (possibly incomplete) constituents, the conservation of constituent structure, and the unpredictability of switching --even if we can determine where a code-switch can occur and where it cannot, there is no way of knowing in advance for any site whether a switch will occur there or not. In particular, if a switch occurs at some point in a sentence, this does not constrain any potential site(s) later in the sentence either to contain another switch or not to --there are no forced switches.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We do not assume that the mechanisms of switching from one language to another can be deduced entirely from the general principles of monolingual grammars 2. Thus we do not analyze the distribution of intrasentential switch points in terms of a grammar of any of the types ordinarily used for accounting for single languages, but by means of a left-to-right process that refers to two well-formed monolingual sentences (i.e. each satisfying the constraints of an \"ordinary\" monolingual grammar for one of the two languages) in producing monolingual sentence fragments and in evaluating potential switch points between these fragments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A production approach",
"sec_num": "1.2"
},
{
"text": "Our model is based on the assumption that bilinguals are fully competent in their two languages, that there is no convergence of the two monolingual codes even during bilingual discourse, and that a code-switched sentence consists of fragments of two monolingual sentences (each one a translation of the other) pieced together. This is done first through an otherwise unconstrained production model that simply copies part of one monolingual process followed by part of the other in such a way that constituent structure is conserved. The resulting process satisfies neither equivalence nor unpredictability. By adding two very simple rules for labeling some constituents according to their language, the existence of a consistent labeling --which can be easily monitored during realtime linear production --turns out to guarantee both equivalence and, for most situations, unpredictability.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A production approach",
"sec_num": "1.2"
},
{
"text": "2While formal theories of grammar may well account for monolingual language in terms of general linguistic principles, there is no reason to believe that processes which juxtapose two languages can be explained in exactly the same way. The reasons implicit or explicit in attempts to do so have to do with explanatory economy, either of individual linguistic competence or of linguistic theories. This seems specious since both are based on a notion of a \"hard-wired\" human linguistic faculty evolving in prehistoric monolingualism. Experience in widely diverse speech communities suggests instead that codemixing strategies, including code-switching, evolve in the life-time of particular communities, are only partly dependent on linguistic typology of the two languages and exhibit widely different patterns of adapting monolingual resources for incorporating linguistic innovation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A production approach",
"sec_num": "1.2"
},
{
"text": "That monolingual fragments are not coextensive with entire constituents is problematic for any model relying on hierarchical relations for deciding well-formedness, since such models are designed primarily to ensure wellformedness of entire constituents, monolingual or bilingual. They cannot ensure that adjacent same-language parts of neighboring constituents are compatible (i.e. yield a wellformed fragment when juxtaposed), since these parts may not even be in the same language as the rest of the constituents that contain them (Muysken, 1995) . For example, an earlier model (Sankoff & Mainville, 1986) , using the contextfree grammars of two languages to account for code-switched sentences satisfying the equivalence constraint, could not ensure the wellformedness of monolingual fragments, for the very reason Muysken has pointed out.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 534,
"end": 549,
"text": "(Muysken, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 609,
"text": "(Sankoff & Mainville, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hierarchy and linearity.",
"sec_num": "1.3"
},
{
"text": "This problem is at the core of the conflict between hierarchical and linear modes of explanation. We will resolve it by ascribing ultimate responsibility for the well-formedness of monolingual fragments to production-level processes. These fragments, arbitrary substrings of preconstructed well-formed monolingual sentences, are pieced together during linear production in a way which corresponds to the other general observations about code-switching and which is essentially neutral with respect to theories of monolingual grammar.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hierarchy and linearity.",
"sec_num": "1.3"
},
{
"text": "We are interested in seeing how two hierarchically structured languages resolve their wordorder differences during intrasentential codeswitching, without the confounding effects of other linguistic phenomena. Thus we will construct a model where the only differences between two languages have to do with word order and the (phonological) form of lexical items, and work out the logical consequences for code-switching of various assumptions and constraints on the production of bilingual sentences. Linearity and hierarchy are the key structural aspects here 3, and the simplest class Sin focusing on the relationship between word order and hierarchy, we are choosing a model not adapted to the treatment of tags and moveable elements such as many adverbials (whose \"switchability\" is uncontrover-of recursive grammars accommodating these properties is that of context-free grammars.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Consider a context-free grammar consisting of a set C of \"categories\" or non-terminal symbols, including one distinguished symbol s (for \"sentence\"); a set of terminal symbols T (\"lexical slots\"), none of which are also in C, a lexicon L which is basically a set of words and an indication of the kind of lexical slot each word can fill, and a set of rewrite rules R of form c --~ vl -\"vn where c is a symbol in C', and the string on the right hand side vl...vn consists of one or more symbols in T or C. A sentence is derived by writing s, then rewriting s by the string Ul'\"um on the right hand side of any rule in R of form s -~ ul\".um, then rewriting any ui which is non-terminal by some rule of form ui --~ wl...wp and so on. Whenever a lexical slot appears in the string it can be filled with words of the appropriate category from L. When there are no more non-terminal symbols (and R must be such that this is always possible), the derivation stops, and the current string is just a sentence generated by the grammar.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "We will make use of phrase structure tree representation for sentences and their constituents. Each symbol appearing in the derivation is represented by a node of the tree; it dominates the constituent of which it is the highest node, and may be used to represent that constituent. (Each terminal node is itself a constituent.)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Note that the words in each constituent form a (contiguous) substring of the sentence. We define these, and all other contiguous substrings of a well-formed sentence string to be well-formed fragments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "In order to speak of code-switching between two different grammars, it is necessary to have some connection between the categories of one and the categories of the other 4. We make sial), nor of remote relationships such as discontinuous constituents, internal co-reference, etc., whose effects on code-switching, if any, have never been systematically documented. On the other hand, context-sensitive phenomena such as subcategorization (Bentahila ~ Davies, 1983) , cliticization or certain deletion processes also escape the scope of context-free modeling, as do other null elements, agreement rules and other features which may, in particular communities, be important to understanding switch sites (Muysken, 1995) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 438,
"end": 464,
"text": "(Bentahila ~ Davies, 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 702,
"end": 717,
"text": "(Muysken, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "4In natural languages, such correspondences will usually be imperfect (Muysken, 1995) , but this is peripheral to our interest in word order. the strong assumptions of lexical translatability and categorial congruence, meaning that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the lexicon LA of language A and the lexicon LB of language B, though the words are all recognizable as coming from one language or the other. We use the same categories C and lexical slots T for both languages. Furthermore we assume grammatical congruence: there is a one-to-one connection between the rulesRA of language A and RB of language B --if RA contains a rule c ~ Vl\"\"Vn, then RB must contain a rule c --+ Ul...~Zn, where each symbol in Vl\"\"Vn has its counterpart in Ul'\"un, and vice-versa, though the order of the terms in one string will not in general correspond to the order of the terms in the other. Finally, for convenience, we will assume fixed word order, that is if c --r Vl... vn in a given grammar, then there may be other rules rewriting C in that grammar, but none where the right hand side contains exactly the same set of symbols",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 85,
"text": "(Muysken, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "U1, \u2022 \u2022 \",~3n.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "To simplify our presentation in this article, we do not allow ambiguity in our grammars. Not only must each monolingual sentence be derivable in exactly one way, but each rule may contain any one symbol only once on its right hand side. These conditions may be relaxed, as long as there is a way of identifying corresponding symbols in corresponding rules in the two grammars.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "In comparing the structure of two sentences, we say that they have the same constituent structure if there is a one-to-one correspondence between their constituents such that if x in one sentence corresponds to y in the other, then the (unordered) set of subconstituents of x corresponds to the set of subconstituents of y.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "The consequences of our assumptions are summarized in:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Theorem 1 5 Every sentence in language A has a unique counterpart in language B with the same constituent structure and whose lexical items are translations o/ those in the sentence o/language A.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Examples (la,b) are two (fictitious) sentences in English and French which we may imagine to be counterparts of each other according to some 5Proofs of all theorems are given in Sankoff (1998) grammatical analysis of the two languages, in the sense of Theorem 1:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 192,
"text": "Sankoff (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Despite differences in word order, the constituent structure is identical and the lexical items are word-for-word translations (without quibbling about the questionable lexical status of the reflexive clitic and the genitive particle and the somewhat different internal structure of determiner in the PP). In the model, the production of a code-switched sentence presupposes the existence of two virtual sentences, one in language A and one in language B, counterparts of each other as in Theorem 1. For each 6 of (2a,b,c,d) the pair of virtual sentences is the one illustrated in (la,b).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "(2a) The brothers wash themselves I avec du savon remarquable de grand-maman (2b) Les fr~res se lavent I with some of Grandma's remarkable soap (2c) The brothers I se lavent avec I some of Grandma's remarkable soap (2d) The ( fr~res I wash themselves I avec I some of Grandma's remarkable soap Given the two virtual sentences in languages A and B, the code-switched sentence is produced by taking part of one of them, followed by part \u00b0Our examples of English/French mixing in this paper are fabricated, and their well-formedness (or not) asserted, solely to illustrate our arguments; they do not constitute empirical data. of the other, and so on, without using any word (or its translation) more than once, until every lexical element (or its translation) has been used up.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "The idea of using virtual sentences is an extension of concepts implicit in Poplack's original discovery (1978 Poplack's original discovery ( , 1980 of the importance of equivalence sites to code-switching and is what distinguishes it from attempts to account for code-switching using purely distributional data --examples of sentences thought to be either well-formed or not. It implies the comparison of the sentence actually produced with what \"could have been said\" in either of the monolingual modes. Though the comparative data are of course not directly accessible, since only one sentence is uttered, controlled inference about unrealized possibilities is consistent with rigorous methodology (cf the notion of the linguistic variable (Labov, 1969; Sankoff, 1988) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 110,
"text": "Poplack's original discovery (1978",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 148,
"text": "Poplack's original discovery ( , 1980",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 743,
"end": 756,
"text": "(Labov, 1969;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 757,
"end": 771,
"text": "Sankoff, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Postulating two complete virtual sentences, however, is an analytical convenience. All that would really be needed in a more realistic (and complicated) analysis, are the parts of each sentence that are actually used plus some additional details about the constituent within which a switch occurs. The consequences of this device, and its realism, lie largely in the way the monolingual fragments are produced \"on the fly\" by the monolingual grammars, however these grammars are conceived in theory. Indeed, we need not refer to any particular linguistic theory for this aspect.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "The above process produces not only plausible code-switched sentences such as those in (2), but also any combination of elements in any order as in (3).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "(3) de grand-maman [the with [ remarquable fr~res [ soap themselves wash some of To arrive at an empirically and conceptually satisfactory model, we must add constraints. The first constraint is motivated by the empirical observation that each monolingual fragment in bilingual discourse tends to be well-formed in its lexifier language. We will assume that the production of the sentence starts with a word in (either) one of the virtual sentences, and copies successive words from left to right in that sentence without skipping any until there is a codeswitch to some word in the other virtual sen-tence. From this point in the other virtual sentence, production continues from left to right, and so on. When the left-to-right production arrives at a word (such as se after fr~res in example 4) which has already been used in the current or the other language (also some of after with) or at the end of one of the virtual sentences, there must be a switch to the other virtual sentence or, if all the words have been used (after remarkable), the production must stop. 4 The left-to-right assumption ensures that monolingual fragments are well-formed, as illustrated in (4), as well as (2). By itself, however, it does not constrain how the alternating fragments in one language and the other are related; indeed it allows them to be juxtaposed in any order, as long as the fragment languages alternate; sister elements in the same constituent in a virtual sentence may find themselves remote from each other in the code-switched sentence, as with remarkable and savon in example (4).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "As mentioned in Section 1.1, however, empirical research confirms that constituent structure, insofar as content and embedding or nesting relations are concerned, is conserved even if the constituent contains a code-switch.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "To conform to this observation, we make a second assumption, that once the production process enters or switches into a constituent, it must exhaust all the lexical slots in the constituent, in one language or both, before returning into a higher-level constituent or entering a sister constituent. In other words, each time it enters a deeper, or more nested, subconstituent, it cannot exit from it until that subconstituent is exhausted. Note that this assumption is independent of whether or not the production follows the left-to-right process described above, so that the sentence (5) satisfies nested first, but not left-to-right.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "(5) (wash((some of (Grandma's soap remarkable)) with) themselves) [ (fr~res les) Theorem 3 Lexicalizing constituents according to nested-first is a sufficient condition for conserving the same constituent structure in the code-switched sentence as in the two virtual sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "The nested first condition and the left-to-right assumption are independent, in the sense that neither implies the other, as is clear from (4) and (5). Neither excludes the other, and together, as in (6) and 2, they produce codeswitched sentences with well-formed monolingual fragments and the same constituent structure as the virtual sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "(6a) (se lavent I (with (some of (Grandma's remarkable soap)))) I (les fr~res) (6b) (fr~res I the) I ((avec I (some of (Grandma's I savon remarquable))) I wash themselves )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "1.6 The language of constituents and subconstituents. The model in Section 1.5, though it produces sentences like those in (2) and (6) with some desirable properties, is not complete. With only the two conditions, certain configurations may occur, such as those in (6), that are clearly unrealistic. For example, if the monolingual fragment being copied includes a word which must be positioned finally in a constituent, like fr~res in (6b), and if the words of the constituent in one virtual sentence or the other have not yet been used up, then an immediate code-switch, to the in this instance, is obligatory to satisfy nested first-the monolingual fragment cannot continue, even though it may have a natural continuation into another constituent. This, and other instances of forced code-switching, are clearly not phenomena observed in real bilingual discourse.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Another type of construction not found in natural bilingual corpora but permitted in the simple production model might include a codeswitched sentence which begins with a fragment of the virtual sentence in language A which would never occur in sentence-initial position in monolingual discourse in language A, such as se lavent in (6a). More generally, if there are several sister subconstituents in a constituent, they may be permuted in any order, as long as there is a switch between each adjacent pair. Still another anomalous output from this model, even if the two monolingual grammars contrast completely, is a code-switch between every adjacent pair of words in the sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Thus the output of the production process as is hitherto formulated seems unduly constrained from the production point of view (by forcing switches) and not constrained enough from the perspective of the output structure. We thus come to the main point of this section: short of the equivalence constraint itself, can we motivate some constraint to account for the observation that switching occurs almost exclusively at equivalence points (notion to be formalized in Section 1.6.1) and virtually all equivalence points seem to be eligible switch points? And can this be done in such a way that during production, the model speaker avoids any switching which will obligatorily require compensatory switches later on in the sentence construction (switch planning or forcing)? Furthermore, can we do this without referring to facts of particular languages, properties of particular grammatical categories, or even the mechanisms of particular theories of monolingual grammar?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Our approach to this problem is to postulate a limited degree of structural monitoring. Monitoring the monolingual fragments for wellformedness is uncontroversial, and we need not enter into the details. What we propose for monitoring at the switch points is the \"language label\" of the constituent in which the switch occurs and of its immediate subconstituents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "We first ask: what parts of the constituent structure of the code-switched sentence may be with certainty ascribed to one language or the other only, and hence should be labeled accordingly? Certainly (i) all terminal symbols --lexical slots --are labeled according to whether the word filling the slot comes from LA or LB, since all words are identifiable as to their language, by definition in our model of congruent grammars. (ii) At the constituent level, any constituent, all of whose immediate subconstituents have the same label, should itself have this label. Anything else would be inconsistent. We will propose a third criterion for labeling constituents, but we first prove the following\"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Theorem 4 Any non-terminal node carrying a label must have at least one immediate descendant node which has this same label or is unlabeled, and one descendant (possibly a lexical slot) which has the same label.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Different instantiations of this model may actually specify that certain subconstituents \"in-herit\" the label --in one theory the determiner may inherit the label of the noun phrase, in another theory it may be the noun itself.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "Requirement (ii) depends on constituent content, but not on constituent order, so that it applies meaningfully to any sentence satisfying nested first such as (5) or (6b). The labeling of (6b) is illustrated in (7). To constrain the order, we are motivated to try to exclude situations such as a declarative sentence which begins with a well-formed verb phrase entirely in English followed by a subject noun phrase in another language. More generally, (iii) any subconstituent which is out of rank order position among its sister subconstituents according to one of the languages, must receive the label of the other language. For example, if the languages A and B are SVO and VSO, respectively, and the code-switched sentence has order VSO, then the labeling should be vBsBo; if the code-switched sentence were SOV, then condition (iii) could not be satisfied, since O is out of order according to both languages, as is the V.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "If conditions (i)-(iii), all of which are wellmotivated, cannot be simultaneously satisfied, the code-switched sentence cannot be considered well-formed. Thus in our hypothetical example with a sentence-initial English verb phrase, requirements (ii) and (iii) conflict, so the sentence is not well-formed. And in example (7) condition (iii) cannot be satisfied with respect to any of the categories lexicalized by fr&es, the, savon, remarquable, wash and themselves, nor the PP node --according to the extremely constrained grammars responsible for examples (la,b). On the other hand, each of examples (2a,b,c,d) satisfy all of the conditions (i)-(iii).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "All that a speaker monitors is the language label of the constituent in which a potential switch occurs and that of its subconstituents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "No additional labeling is warranted within this framework, though other treatments of code-switching all have their own particular way of assigning a label to each and every constituent (Rivas, 1981; Woolford, 1983; Joshi, 1985; Di Sciullo et al., 1986; Myers-Scotton, 1993) . In particular, we would claim that there is no conceptual justification or need for postulating an underlying (or \"matrix\") language for the entire sentence itself when this is not motivated by criteria (ii) and (iii).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 186,
"end": 199,
"text": "(Rivas, 1981;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 215,
"text": "Woolford, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 228,
"text": "Joshi, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 253,
"text": "Di Sciullo et al., 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 274,
"text": "Myers-Scotton, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic model",
"sec_num": "1.4"
},
{
"text": "In the string of words which constitute a codeswitched sentence in our model, there is no problem in identifying where a fragment in language A stops and one in language B starts. On the constituent level, however, it is not as obvious where this switch should be located and sometimes even whether or not there is an interconstituent switch, as in (8). This is an example of string-level code-switching with and without corresponding constituentlevel switches. The rule NP--+ ADJ+NP in English and NP-~ NP+ADJ in French results in the lowest NP being labeled E, by requirement (iii). The higher NPs, the VP, the object NP and the S are labeled E, and the PP labeled F because all of their subconstituents are (requirement (ii)). The code-switch between Duke and de is also a constituent-level switch between Duke and the PP, but the switch between Lorraine and had is not reflected by a switch between the highest NP and its sister VP since they are both labeled E.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.6.1"
},
{
"text": "In general, what constitutes a code-switch between two adjacent sister constituents? The only reasonable answer is that one constituent is labeled A and the other B. What happens if two differently labeled sister constituents are separated by one or more unlabeled constituents? Once again it is clear that there has been a code-switch at the constituent level, but the site cannot be pinned down, other than by saying that it occurred in the interval between the two labeled constituents. Note that there also must be switches at some lower levels within each of the intervening unlabeled constituents; otherwise they could not be unlabeled, by criterion (ii).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.6.1"
},
{
"text": "We can now state the equivalence constraint. Consider the corresponding rules for ordering the n subconstituents of a given constituent in language A and language B. If the sets of the first i symbols on the right-hand side of the rules are different in the two grammars (and hence the set of the last n -i symbols are also different, since the two rules are congruent), then the equivalence constraint prohibits a code-switch between the i-th and i + 1-st subconstituents. Otherwise the boundary between the two subconstituents is an equivalence point and a codeswitch is permitted. In the case n = 2, this reduces to the prohibition of a code-switch between the two subconstituents unless the two languages order them in the same way.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.6.1"
},
{
"text": "The production model in Section 1.5 and the labeling rules in Section 1.6 ensure that monolingual fragments are well-formed, constituent structures are correct and that no constituent labeled X appears within a higher constituent in a rank order position not permitted in language X. This does not mean that the equivalence constraint holds. Consider for example the rules c --~ xyz and c --+ zyx in languages A and B respectively. Then the model as it is now constituted would permit the constituent order xAyBz A, with two constituent-level codeswitches, both of which violate the equivalence constraint. (cf Grandma's I remarquable I soap or savon I remarkable I de grand-maman.)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proof of the equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.7"
},
{
"text": "In one important case, however, equivalence always holds.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proof of the equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.7"
},
{
"text": "Monolingual grammars have binary constituent-subconstituent structure if there are at most two symbols on the right-hand side of every rule. Then the following holds:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proof of the equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.7"
},
{
"text": "Theorem 5 Given a well-formed code-switched sentence where the monolingual grammars have binary constituent-subconstituent structure. If two sister subconstituents are labeled A and B, respectively, the code-switch between them satis-ties the equivalence constraint.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proof of the equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.7"
},
{
"text": "As we have seen, however, the theorem may not hold if rules may have more than two terms on their right-hand sides. The counter-example shown above, for example, represents the insertion of a language B subconstituent into an otherwise language A constituent. This requires two code-switches, one before and one after the inserted subconstituent. If a code-mixing strategy were to be based on the insertion of constituents in this way, every code-switch before an insertion would require the speaker to plan for an appropriate second code-switch later on in the sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proof of the equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.7"
},
{
"text": "While many types of relatively complex forward planning must be incorporated into monolingual production models, the distribution of code-switches in bilingual corpora is more consistent with a hypothesis of the independence of successive code-switches: no forced switches (or no planning). Where a switch takes place in between two constituents, well-formedness of the code-switched sentence cannot depend further switches later on in the left-to-right order 7.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proof of the equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.7"
},
{
"text": "Theorem 6 Given a well-formed code-switched sentence. If two sister subeonstituents are labeled A and B, respectively, and there is no labeled subconstituent between them, then under no forced switches, there must be a code-switch satisfying the equivalence constraint in the interval between the labeled subconstituents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proof of the equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.7"
},
{
"text": "2 Relaxing the constraints.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proof of the equivalence constraint.",
"sec_num": "1.7"
},
{
"text": "The model in Section 1 precludes forms such as *se lavent [ themselves where corresponding items from both virtual sentences (in this case se and themselves) appear. Such repeattranslations (also called portmanteau or palindromic constructions do occur, albeit rarely, in some corpora.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Example (9) is drawn from the Finnish-English code-mixing corpus of Poplack et al. (1987b) . We assume, following these authors' arguments, that this sentence consists of three fragments, with code-switches immediately before and after the English preposition to. The rThere are some exceptions: these will be discussed in Section 2.2.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 90,
"text": "Poplack et al. (1987b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "ellative case-marked kidneyst~i and illative aortaan are formed of borrowings from English and behave as native items (e.g. there is no English determiner preceding them as would be expected within English fragments; rather they manifest null determiners and case-marking characteristic of Finnish --see Section 3).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "(9) Mutta se oli kidneyst~i I to [ aortaan.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "but it was kidney-el, aorta-il. 'But it was from the kidney to the aorta.'",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "The interesting aspect of this example is that to and the ellative marker -an play identical roles and only one should have appeared in the adpositional phrase containing aorta according to our model. The same, highly bilingual, speaker produced a similar example in (10).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "(10) Ja sitten, uh, miss~i h/in n-[ at [ yliopistossa and then where she n-university-in.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "otti, niin kuin, [ art history. took-3p., like, 'And then, uh, where did she-at university she took, like, art history.' Again, the inessive marker -ssa has the same function as the English preposition at and only one of them should have appeared, according to our model. This type of construction, involving the redundant use of functionally identical words, is rare --examples (9) and (10) are the only two in the Finnish-English corpus --and, as can be seen in (10), tends to evidence productionlevel difficulties (hesitations, autocorrection, etc.). Nishimura (1986) presents several similar examples involving adpositional phrases for Japanese-English code-mixing.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 554,
"end": 570,
"text": "Nishimura (1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "It is also possible to find occasional instances of redundant verb use in SVO/SOV mixing -producing a SVOV structure. Examples (11) and (12) below are drawn from the Tamil-English code-mixing corpus of Sankoff et al. (1990) Precisely how does this violate the conditions of our model, and can they be relaxed to accommodate it? Clearly the first postulate violated (Section 1.5) is that the \"...code-switched sentence is produced by taking part of one of [the virtual sentences], followed by part of the other, and so on, without using any word (or its translation) more than once, until every lexical element (or its translation) has been used up.\" What if we changed the latter part of this to \"... and so on, until every lexical element (and/or its translation) has been used once?\" This general extension allows for the use of any element as well as its translation in the same sentence. More limited extensions, where only specified lexical classes may occur in both languages, would be more consistent with actual speech behaviour.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 202,
"end": 223,
"text": "Sankoff et al. (1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "With these kinds of changes, there is no difficulty in retaining the left-to-right and nested first assumptions, as well as consituent labeling criteria (i) and (ii). Condition (iii), formulated as it is in terms of the rank order of constituents, must be worded differently to capture the basic idea that a constituent is labeled according to language A whenever it is out place according to a rule of language B, and viceversa. \"Out of place\" can no longer be detected by simply checking the rank order, but by ascertaining whether any sister constituent preceding the candidate constituent is prohibited from preceding it by the appropriate rule of language B, and similarly for constituents following the candidate constituent. An analogous procedure can be used to verify the equivalence constraint.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Typically, one sister constituent of the repeated translated constituents will receive two conflicting labelings from criterion (iii) in this situation. The noun in the Finnish adpositional phrase, the object in SVOV constructions, the proposition complement of both the English and Tamil verbs, all receive two labels this way. To weaken the model in order to accept such sentences, we must discard conflicting criterion (iii) labelings due to \"out of place\" configurations with respect to the repeated translated constituent. Criteria (i) and (ii) still operate. The equivalence constraint will not hold with respect to this sister constituent, but can be verified elsewhere.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "2.2 Insertional code-switching. In some bilingual communities, the code-mixing mode of discourse may include the possibility of inserting one specific type of constituent into positions where it would not occur monolingually. In the Tamil-English corpus in Section 2.1, examples 14and 15, as well as (13), illustrate the placement of an English proposition preceding the Tamil propositional complementizer, instead of in its obligatory English position following that. It is important to note that in this community this pattern is confined to the very particular category of propositional complements. All other code-switches satisfy the equivalence constraint; none of the numerous other wordorder conflicts between Tamil and English give rise to an insertional code-switching possibility.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "A different type of constituent insertion has been characterized quantitatively by Na'it M' Barek & Sankoff (1988) . This involves the insertion, by bilingual Moroccans, of a full French noun phrase, including determiners and quantifiers, in all contexts where an Arabic noun phrase would be appropriate. This includes, among other contexts, post-verbal subjects as in (16), which are not possible in French. s feeling is treated as a loanword, for reasons discussed in Section 3.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 114,
"text": "Barek & Sankoff (1988)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Determiner-initial French noun phrases also appear after demonstratives as in (17) and (18), producing demonstrative-determiner sequences, and after the indefinite wa.hd as in (18), producing determiner-determiner sequences, neither of which is a French pattern. 16 The sentences we have shown containing examples of constituent insertion are all excluded from the model based on the equivalence constraint. For example, the English propositional complement preceding the Tamil complementizer nu would be labeled for Tamil by criterion (iii) because of its non-English position, but this would conflict with the English label it would receive from criterion (ii) since it is a normal English sentence containing only English lexical items. Similarly, the post-verbal subject consisting entirely of a normal French noun phrase receives conflicting labels from its position corresponding to Arabic rules and from its own constituent elements.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "It must be stressed that not all bilingual communities that develop code-mixing modes of discourse make use of constituent insertion; those that do (e.g. Tamil-English or Arabic-French), use it very sparingly in the sense that typically only one type of constituent (English propositions or French noun phrases) may be inserted in contexts (before nu, postverbally) where it would not be found in monolingual discourse.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "It is not difficult in this case to relax the model conditions so that such sentences are permitted. As in Section 2.1, the specified category is simply allowed to escape labeling by criterion (iii), and can be labeled by its own subconstituents (criterion (ii)). There is no danger that this will result in anomalous labeling higher in the phrase structure, since a sister constituent (the Tamil complementizer, the Arabic verb) will already have the contrary label, and the constituent containing them is thus prevented from receiving a label by way of criterion (ii). Note, however, that only those insertions which are not in conflict with the fundamental production conditions left-to-right and most nested can be considered well-formed. In addition, the equivalence constraint, wherever the specified category is not one of the constituents directly involved, still holds.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "3 The borrowing process.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "The equivalence constraint formalized in Section 1.6.1 has been verified as a general tendency in several communities -Puerto Rican Spanish and English in New York (Poplack, 1980) , Finnish and English (Poplack et al., 1987b) , Tamil and English (Sankoff et al., 1990) , Wolof and French, and Fongbe and French , Igbo and English (Eze, 1997) , and others. However, there are actually relatively few data on which it has been independently tested, since most of the voluminous literature on code-switching, especially that on insertional switching, is based on data which represent, we would claim, lexical borrowing (e.g. Eliasson, 1991; Mahootian & Santorini, 1994; Backus, 1996) . While code-switching essentially involves the reconciliation of the word orders of both languages, only the word-order of the recipient language is pertinent to borrowing. Thus attempts to understand codeswitching based on a mixture of borrowing and true switching data are likely to be misleading.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 179,
"text": "(Poplack, 1980)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 225,
"text": "(Poplack et al., 1987b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 268,
"text": "(Sankoff et al., 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 341,
"text": "(Eze, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 637,
"text": "Eliasson, 1991;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 666,
"text": "Mahootian & Santorini, 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 667,
"end": 680,
"text": "Backus, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "In the model constructed above, the borrowing process is not relevant. Loanwords, including those are ad hoc, \"nonce\", or momentary, uses, are not excluded, but simply considered to be syntactically integrated, i.e. to behave as native lexical items with respect to word order. How can this working hypothesis be validated? In Sections 3.1 and 3.2, we demonstrate an answer to this problem.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Repetition-translation.",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Many loanwords have long histories in the recipient language, are used by monolinguals (often with no consciousness of their foreign etymology), are widespread and are accepted by m0nolingual dictionaries and other linguistic arbiters. None of these non-structural characteristics, however, are necessary to the borrowing process. In many communities, bilinguals have access to essentially the entire content-word lexicon of one language as potential loanwords into the other, perhaps for a single usage only. What is important is that when these words are borrowed the structural linguistic characteristics of their usage are the same as with established loanwords. What are these characteristics? Some of them are: integration into the recipient language at the syntactic, morphological, semantic and phonological levels, use as a single item independent of other donor language material, and restriction to nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., to the exclusion of determiners, pronouns, prepositions and other grammatical words.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Properties of loanwords.",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Often, during the study of a bilingual corpus, we discover a pattern of words from a specific lexical category in language A appearing in mixed discourse in contexts where they seem to violate the equivalence constraint, but when considered as language B words, i.e. borrowings, there is no violation, e.g. kidney in (9), feeling in (15). Thus these words seem syntactically integrated into language B. To confirm their borrowed status, we verify the other properties of loanwords.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Properties of loanwords.",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Phonological integration turns out to be an unreliable indicator, for two reasons (cf Poplack et al., 1987a) . One is that bilinguals, in contrast to monolinguals, tend to be aware of the etymology of loanwords and, in some communities, will often reflect this knowledge in their pronunciation of borrowed items. Second, in some communities, the learning context results in phonologies for languages A and B which converge in unpredictable and diverse ways from speaker to speaker.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 108,
"text": "(cf Poplack et al., 1987a)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Properties of loanwords.",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Semantic integration refers to a shift in function or meaning of a loanword from donor language characteristics to recipient language characteristics. This may often be documented for established loanwords that have had time to evolve within the host language, or for borrowings between languages whose functional categories are structured very differently, but in general, where bilingual borrowings are most frequently from and into the category of nouns, the criterion of semantic integration, though satisfied, may not always revealing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Properties of loanwords.",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The criterion of isolated occurrence of loanwords in recipient language contexts is more universal and is usually relatively easy to apply. The main difficulties come from compound words and other multi-word forms whose status as single lexical items is not always clear. Statistically, these should not constitute a major problem. There is also the possibility of coincidence. If nouns are often borrowed and adjectives are often borrowed, then occasionally a noun-adjective combination will appear to have been borrowed together, when this is just the result of chance. This will also be relatively rare.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Properties of loanwords.",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The lexical/grammatical (or content/ function) contrast is also useful. It is true that among the world's languages, loanwords have on occasion included prepositions, pronouns, determiners, and other grammatical categories, but these are exceptional, and the overwhelming tendency is for borrowing, and especially onetime borrowing by bilinguals, to affect nouns, and to a lesser extent, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Moreover, in specific communities, bilingual borrowing may be focused on particular categories more than in other communities, and these patterns may be useful for analytical purposes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Properties of loanwords.",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Finally, it is the criterion of morphological integration which is of great interest. Loanwords, established or momentary, are inflected exclusively through recipient language morphological rules. Insofar as such marking is non-null and is different for language A and language B, words borrowed from the former into the latter should display exclusively language B inflectional morphology. rect) objects appear. Examining these Englishorigin nouns, we first note that these occur most frequently in isolation, and occasionally as compounds, or as familiar adjective-noun combinations, but never preceded by English prepositions, articles, quantifiers or demonstratives as would frequently be the case if these were parts of well-formed English fragments resulting from code-switching. Second, whereas the preponderance of preverbal native Tamil objects are actually pronouns, from 45-70% depending on the case, no English pronouns whatsoever appear in this context, as would be expected from borrowings, but not if these were code-switches into English fragments --which would normally include at least the occasional pronoun.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Properties of loanwords.",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Third, it is the inflectional morphology on these nouns which is the most revealing. They either have null morphology or Tamil inflections.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case marking of",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Since in Tamil the numerically frequent accusatives and datives are prescribed to take non-null case-marking, we examine marking rates quantitatively. In fact, as in Table 1 , many (non-pronominal) Tamil forms are unmarked, especially accusatives. The Engiishorigin forms show remarkably parallel rates, especially when the accusative-dative contrast is considered. This morphological integration into Tamil is exactly what would be expected of borrowings, and certainly not of well-formed English fragments produced by code-switching.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 174,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case marking of",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "In summary, the criteria of syntactic integration, isolation, lexical category, and morphological integration all confirm the loanword status of the preverbal English-origin nouns, and justify our considering them as Tamil nouns for the purposes of applying our model of code-switching.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case marking of",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Formally, the only adaptation of our model necessary to allow for borrowing is, for specified terminal categories in T, the list of words in language A in the category is added in to the pre-existing list for language B, so that there are now two possible translations in B for each word in A in this category. The uniqueness statement in Theorem 1 has to be modified to take this into account, but this leads to no difficulty. We presume of course that the borrowed word in B can be distinguished from its \"etymological\" origin in A by the tests and criteria illustrated in Section 3.2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Formal considerations",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The core of this work is our model of equivalence-point code-switching. This avoids issues of grammatical theory by focusing on the \"real-time\" production of a code-mixed sentence drawing on the output of two monolingual grammars.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our model is built on an earlier formulation of the equivalence constraint (Sankoff & Mainville, 1986) . It is the production aspect here, however, that allows us to achieve the all-important well-formedness of monolingual fragments, not strictly guaranteed in the earlier work, and to model the essential unpredictability of codeswitching. The present version (Sankoff, 1998) has a more economical protocol for constituent labeling and a more complete account of the coincidence (or lack thereof) between word-level switching and constituent-level switching. We have shown here how to weaken the strong conditions leading to Theorems 5 and 6 to account for other types of code-switching that have been reported.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 102,
"text": "(Sankoff & Mainville, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 376,
"text": "(Sankoff, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We have allowed some degree of asymmetry in the model. Borrowing can be unidirectional with respect to specific categories. The same is true for constituent insertion. Further development will require weakening the one-toone correspondence of the sets of rules, and of the grammatical and lexical categories of the two languages. For example, the use of specialized incorporation devices, like inflectioncarrying dummy verbs, or techniques for marking borrowed adverbs, typically belong to one language and not the other.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We have not treated the topic of interference in this presentation. Interference differs from borrowing in several respects, in particular on the level of intentionality --interference is more likely to be avoided or corrected by speakers, and is more likely to show up in communities where the domain of monolingualism, and frequency of use of the affected language are restricted. Nevertheless, interference has interesting consequences for our model in that it tends to affect pre-sentential discourse markers, tags, conjunctions, prepositions and other grammatical morphemes rather than lexical items as is the case for loanwords. Both borrowing and interference can lead to the long-term establishment of lexical items, so that when interference is frequent, the distinction between the two becomes of interest.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion.",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This work supported in part by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The author is a Fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Two in One. Bilingual Speech of Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Backus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Backus, A. (1996). Two in One. Bilingual Speech of Turkish Immigrants in the Nether- lands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Code switching and X-bar theory: The functional head constraint. Linguistic Inquiry",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Belazi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Rubin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Toribio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "",
"volume": "25",
"issue": "",
"pages": "221--237",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Belazi, H. M., Rubin, E. J., and Toribio, A. J. (1994). Code switching and X-bar theory: The functional head constraint. Linguistic In- quiry, 25, 221-237.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "The syntax of Arab-French code-switching",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bentahila",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Davies",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Lingua",
"volume": "59",
"issue": "",
"pages": "301--331",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bentahila, A., and Davies, E. E. (1983). The syntax of Arab-French code-switching. Lin- gua, 59, 301-30.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Government and code-mixing",
"authors": [
{
"first": ", A.-M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Di Sciullo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Muysken",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Singh",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Journal of Linguistics",
"volume": "22",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--24",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Di Sciullo, A.-M., Muysken, P., and Singh, R. (1986). Government and code-mixing. Jour- nal of Linguistics, 22, 1-24.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Models and constraints in code-switching theory. Papers from the Workshop on Constraints, Conditions and Models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eliasson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "17--50",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eliasson, S. (1991). Models and constraints in code-switching theory. Papers from the Work- shop on Constraints, Conditions and Mod- els, pp. 17-50. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Aspects of language contact: a variationist perspective on code-switching and borrowing in Igbo-English bilingual discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eze",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eze, E. (1997) Aspects of language contact: a variationist perspective on code-switching and borrowing in Igbo-English bilingual dis- course. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ot- tawa.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Cognitive aspects of bilingual communication",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gumperz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hernandez",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1969,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gumperz, J., and Hernandez, E. (1969). Cog- nitive aspects of bilingual communication. Working Paper Number 28, Language Behav- ior Research Laboratory. University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Processing of sentences with intrasentential code-switching",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Natural Language Parsing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "190--205",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joshi, A. K. (1985). Processing of sentences with intrasentential code-switching. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen and A.M. Zwicky (eds.), Natural Language Parsing, pp. 190-205. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "0969). Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Labov",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "45",
"issue": "",
"pages": "715--762",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Labov, W. 0969). Contraction, deletion and in- herent variability of the English copula. Lan- guage, 45, 715-762.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Code-switching and the problem of bilingual competence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lipski",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1977,
"venue": "Aspects of Bilingualism",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "250--263",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lipski, J. (1977). Code-switching and the prob- lem of bilingual competence. In M. Paradis (ed.), Aspects of Bilingualism, pp. 250-263. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Adnominal adjectives, codeswitching and lexicalized TAG",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mahootian",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Santorini",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "3e colloque international sur les grammaires d'arbres adjoints (TAG+3)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--76",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mahootian, S., and Santorini, B. (1994). Ad- nominal adjectives, codeswitching and lex- icalized TAG. In A. Abeille, S. Aslanides and O. Rambow (eds.), 3e colloque interna- tional sur les grammaires d'arbres adjoints (TAG+3), Technical Report TALANA-RT- 94-01, pp. 73-76.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Orphan categories in bilingual discourse: Adjectivization strategies in Wolof-French and Fongbe-French",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Meechan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poplack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Language Variation and Change",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "",
"pages": "169--194",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Meechan, M., and Poplack, S. (1995). Orphan categories in bilingual discourse: Adjectiviza- tion strategies in Wolof-French and Fongbe- French. Language Variation and Change, 7, 169-194.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Code-switching and grammatical theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Muysken",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "177--198",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Muysken, P. (1995) Code-switching and gram- matical theory. In L. Milroy and P. Muysken (eds.), One speaker, two languages, pp. 177-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Dueling Languages",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Myers-Scotton",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Dueling Languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Le discours mixte arabe/fran~ais: des emprunts ou des alternances de langue? Revue Canadienne de",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Na'/T M'barek",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sankoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Linguistique",
"volume": "33",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "143--154",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Na'/t M'Barek, M., and Sankoff, D. (1988). Le discours mixte arabe/fran~ais: des emprunts ou des alternances de langue? Revue Cana- dienne de Linguistique, 33(2), 143-154.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Language Processing in Bilinguals: psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nishimura",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "123--166",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nishimura, M. (1986). Intrasentential code- switching. The case of language assignment. In J. Vaid (ed.), Language Processing in Bilinguals: psycholinguistic and neuropsy- chological perspectives, pp. 123-43. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Grammaticality in codeswitching",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pandit",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Codeswitching as a worldwide phenomenon",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "33--69",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pandit, I. (1990). Grammaticality in code- switching. In R. Jacobson (ed.), Codeswitch- ing as a worldwide phenomenon, pp. 33-69. New York: Peter Lang.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Constraints on language mixing: intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pfaff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "",
"volume": "55",
"issue": "",
"pages": "291--318",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pfaff, C. (1979). Constraints on language mix- ing: intrasentential code-switching and bor- rowing in Spanish/English. Language, 55, 291-318.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAI~OL: Toward a typology of codeswitching",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poplack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "Latino Discourse and Communicative Behavior",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "",
"pages": "581--618",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Poplack, S. (1978). Syntactic structure and so- cial function of code-switching. In R. Duran, (ed.), Latino Discourse and Communicative Behavior, pp. 169-184. New Jersey: Ablex, Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAI~OL: Toward a typology of code- switching. Linguistics, 18, 581-618.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Patterns of language mixture: Nominal structure in Wolof-French and Fongbe-French bilingual discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poplack",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Meechan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "199--232",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Poplack, S., and Meechan, M. (1995). Pat- terns of language mixture: Nominal structure in Wolof-French and Fongbe-French bilingual discourse. In L. Milroy and P. Muysken (eds.), One speaker, two languages, pp. 199-232. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poplack",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sankoff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Miller",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Linguistics",
"volume": "26",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "47--104",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Poplack, S., Sankoff, D., and Miller, C. (1987a). The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Lin- guistics, 26(1), 47-104.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Distinguishing language contact phenomena: Evidence from Finnish-English bilingualism",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poplack",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wheeler",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Westwood",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "The Nordic languages and modern linguistics",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "",
"pages": "33--56",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Poplack, S., Wheeler, S., and Westwood, A. (1987b). Distinguishing language contact phenomena: Evidence from Finnish-English bilingualism. In P. Lilius and M. Saari (eds.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics 6, pp. 33-56. University of Helsinki Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "On the application of transformations to bilingual sentences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rivas",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Manuscript. Amherst",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rivas, A. (1981). On the application of transfor- mations to bilingual sentences. Manuscript. Amherst, MA: Dept. of Spanish and Por- tuguese, University of Massachusetts.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sankoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey. IV Language: the socio-cultural context",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "140--161",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sankoff, D. (1988) Sociolinguistics and syntac- tic variation. In F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguis- tics: the Cambridge Survey. IV Language: the socio-cultural context, pp. 140-161. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "A formal production-based explanation of the facts of code-switching",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sankoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sankoff, D. (1998) A formal production-based explanation of the facts of code-switching.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Codeswitching of context-free grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sankoff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mainville",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Theoretical Linguistics",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "75--90",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sankoff, D., and Mainville, M. (1986). Code- switching of context-free grammars. Theoret- ical Linguistics, 13, 75-90.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "The case of the nonce loan in Tamil",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sankoff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poplack",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vanniarajan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Language Variation and Change",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "71--101",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sankoff, D., Poplack, S., and Vanniarajan, S. (1990). The case of the nonce loan in Tamil. Language Variation and Change, 2(1), 71- 101.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Woolford",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Linguistic Inquiry",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "",
"pages": "52--536",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Woolford, E. (1983). Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 52-536.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "themselves with some of Grandma's remarkable soap (lb) .......... S ~VP i I I~ ~es se l~ent avec du ~lvon rem~uable de grand-maman 1.5 The production model.",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "some of Grandma's sawn rem~Nuable wash themselves",
"type_str": "figure"
}
}
}
} |