Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
1.
Introduction
Researchers who study codeswitching have debated for more than half a century about how to identify linguistic borrowings as opposed to switches. Single "other-language" items inserted in an utterance may range from being a fully integrated borrowing like adroit (meaning "dexterous", borrowed from French in the seventeenth century) in English to a word like bonjour, which most English speakers would consider to be a French word or switch into French. However, there are many "in-between" examples which are hard to categorise. This is not only a theoretical problem but also a practical one for theorists of language contact because if borrowings have a different language membership from switches then one might expect them to behave differently. It is nevertheless quite tricky to find foolproof criteria for distinguishing between the two. Muysken (2000) proposes the notion of listedness, according to which "[t]he dimension of listedness refers to the degree to which a particular element or structure is part of a memorized list which has gained acceptance within a particular speech community" (Muysken, 2000, p. 71). Part of the problem stems from the fact these two labels - switch and borrowing - are essentially theoretical constructs, operationally defined in different ways depending on the theoretical framework used by the researchers. The approach of Shana Poplack and associates treats borrowing and codeswitching as fundamentally different processes; as "two distinct phenomena" (Poplack & Meechan, 1998a, p. 132), whereas Carol Myers-Scotton's approach sees the two processes as being "part of the same developmental continuum, not unrelated phenomena" (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 163). Myers-Scotton argues that "they undergo largely the same morphosyntactic procedures . . . during language production" (ibid.).
Many criteria of various kinds have been proposed for making a borrowing versus codeswitching distinction. Poplack & Sankoff (1984) (summarised by Muysken, 2000, p. 73) outline both linguistic and usage-based criteria. Their linguistic criteria are morphophonemic and/or syntactic integration while their usage-based criteria include frequency of use, native-language synonym displacement and acceptability. However, they caution that "[n]ot all of these criteria . . . will be satisfied in all cases which we may want to consider loanwords, and each of them may be satisfied by words which are not" (Poplack & Sankoff, 1984,...