Bilingual Discourse in Electronic Communication - Literature review Example

Bilingual Discourse in Electronic Communication Name Tutor Institution Date Bilingual Discourse in Adults There are several types of discourse bilinguals such as code switching, convergence, borrowing and integration. Each of these phenomenons of bilingual speaking is used variedly and has its own characteristics. According to Matras (2000) integration is the use of parts of a specific language subconsciously or deliberately within a different language. This is due to lack of a better word to use thus preference to insert a word that one remembers. Thus, a speaker may use a word of a different language subconsciously and retain the language they started speaking in. Convergence is defined as the reconstruction of two or more languages that are intentional and mutual and may lead to a rise of a different language structure altogether. It relies on similarities between the two languages and reduces communication strain between the involved languages. Code switching is another frequent factor in bilingual communication and it affects bilingualism in the individual and societal levels. It is defined as the subconscious use of one or more languages in a conversation. One can switch within sentences, words or clauses. There are three main types of code switching: inter-sentential, intra-sentential and tag-switching. Inter-sentential code switching involves the use of a different language when starting a sentence and a different one when finishing it. The use of language A in the middle of a sentence and language B in the beginning and end of the same sentence is referred to as intra-switching. The use of a different language when adding a question tag is the tag-switching. Tag switching involves question tags and informal statements such as you know, I mean and right. People have different reasons for code switching. These include the topic being discussed, the relationship between the listener and speaker, the social setting and the context of the discussion. When a bilingual individual communicates with a monolingual person, the conversation will be in the language that is common for them. The bilingual person may or may not code switch depending on the conversation and the relationship between the two. The situation is different when two bilingual people communicate because there will be more code switching. This depends on the relationship of the two people. Code switching is believed to lead to convergence if used over a long time (Ruan, 2003). Borrowing in bilingualism is the use of words from another language to express something in another. Unlike code switching, it is deliberate and may be used consistently until it is adapted to the morphology, syntax and phonetics of the borrowing language. This adaptation goes to an extent of forgetting the original language from which the word is adapted. It may finally be used by monolingual speakers who do not have knowledge of the donor language. Borrowing can be done at individual and communal levels. According to Julca-Guerrero (2009), borrowing can be structural or lexical. In lexical borrowing, a language takes words from a different one and makes it part of its vocabulary. Structural borrowing occurs when the language borrows grammatical functions and errors. Therefore, borrowing is not the adoption of a new language but a reshape of the present language. Borrowing can introduce new vocabulary to a different language while code switching cannot. Literature Review on Opinions on Language Mixing Language mixing is the use of more than one language in communication. There are different views on it in all sectors especially education and employment. In the educational sector, national regulators define the languages that are used in the formal sector. One of these opinions on the issue of forced usage of formal language is that it does not feel natural for people whose native language is not the recognized formal language. Some governments have an English only policy in the classrooms. In the educational sector, the students may be uncomfortable studying with their eloquent peers. In the report by Brisk et al (2010), with regard to the United States of America, it is noted that bilingual education was perceived as a problematic issue in the past. It was believed that the incorporation of mixed learning did not contribute to the learning of English for bilingual students. The English only classroom policy views have been imposed on the educational sector which made bilingual education implementation harder. However, bilingual education continues to take place in some states with a few challenges. It is observed that the benefits of bilingual education are more and have led to the rise of bilingual professionals that are needed globally. In educational sector, assessment of bilingual student performance is another problem. The educational administrators view it as problematic because effective assessment of the student may require additional testing and procedures. It may require that the English only classroom policy to be eradicated so as to reduce under performance. In some cases, the bilingual examination is being introduced which allows bilingual students of lower proficiency in the formal language to do their tests in their most proficient language. As explained by Barnard et al (2013), the incorporation of code switching in the classroom and eradication of the English only or Chinese only in the classroom will be of more good than evil in Taiwan. Therefore, in the past, there were policies that did not uphold bilingual education but the situation is changing as code switching is gradually introduced. A study by Rodriguez-Galando (2006) on more than 16 Latino immigrants in the United states concludes that parents and their children viewed the bilingual communication and bilingual education as significant. It is explained that they understood the relevance of English in the economic and social development but despite the need to gain the proficiency in it, it was expected that the children would learn Spanish as well as it was a cultural factor. The children were encouraged to be bilingual while their parents found it harder to learn. This affected the parental contribution in teaching their children homework in the evening due to the lack of knowledge. A similar concern is raised by the Chinese families who preferred their children to speak Chinese at home and learn it over the weekend due to the English only education policy. Briefly, most bilingual speakers know the relevance of understanding and learning the contextual high language but seek to retain their origin. The bilingual adults are open to learn both languages (Wu, 2005). A study by Dasko (2003), on the attitudes of the Canadian public on bilingualism reveals that in the last 30 years the support and acceptance for bilingualism and ethnic diversity has evolved. The generation that created the difference is the baby boom generation that had different social values. The older generations did not support bilingualism because they embraced deferred gratification. This value was replaced by empowerment, pragmatism and hedonism. Ethnic diversity was embraced by the boom generation. It is further stated that before this generation, there was superiority of groups with minority ethnic groups considered inferior. In 1990s the effect of the boom generation was diluted with rejection of some bilingualism aspects in the Spicer Commission and introduction of stricter laws on immigration. In early 2000s, the situation changed as bilingualism was supported again. In 2003, it is reported that 56% of Canadians supported bilingualism. It is observed that the Canadian support for Bilingualism can be threatened by external factors and thus future external changes will determine their opinion on bilingualism in the country. A different study by Buja (2008) on the attitudes towards bilingualism of the Moldovan-Russian bilinguals leads to a different perspective. After conducting interviews with the bilinguals and monolinguals of Russian and Moldovan origin, it is realized that the Moldovans felt inferior to the Russian and perceived their language as unworthy. They felt stigmatized due to this issue and consequently worked hard to change their accents into the ‘acceptable’ one. They become conscious code switchers depending on the situation. This stigmatization, however, led to improved solidarity of the Moldovans in their uniqueness and identity. The study also suggests that the Russians and Romanian Monolinguals had negative attitudes towards Moldovan-Russian bilinguals. They considered them incompetent. They were at times stigmatized against and it is reported that a shop in Cahul only served clients that spoke Russian. Most of them opted to speak in Russian most of the time but could consciously code switch or switch between the Russian and Moldovan accents depending on the external surrounding. In spite of tis stigmatization, the bilingual people ensured that they used Russian more frequently (Buja, 2008). In the literature review carried out above, it is observed that different people have different opinions on the use of language mixing. In some cases, bilingual communication and education are supported while in some cases there is stigmatization against bilingual people. In the United States it is observed that stigmatization is not present and bilingual education is being implemented. In the Russian context, bilingual Moldovan- Russians are stigmatized against. They are thus forced to change their accents and code switch in order to fit in. in Canada, bilingual communication is supported by more than half of the country. Therefore, different views on bilingual people are held. Models of language mixing Matrix language frame model (MLF) The use of more than two languages has been widely studied and analyzed from two main points of view: syntactic and discourse. Myers-Scotton with the help of an associate came up with the Matrix Language Frame model which is theoretical and has been used in examination of contact phenomenon in various languages since the 90s. This model was later revised and proposals of sub models were made. The model is determined by psycholinguistic theories. These include the activation of the base and quest language. It only applies to bilingual clauses such as code switching and is based on asymmetry which means that the roles of the participating languages are asymmetric and mainly applies to classic code switching. Classic code switching has only one language that supplies the frame for the bilingual clause. In understanding the Model Language Frame model, one must understand the two languages that are involved in code switching. These are the matrix language and the embedded language. The matrix language is the dominant language involved in the code switching while the embedded language is the language that is incorporated into the matrix language. The matrix language determines the structure of the language after code switching. The base of asymmetry differentiates the morpheme types under Model Language Frame in two categories, system morphemes or content morphemes. The difference between the two morphemes is that content morphemes may assign thematic roles while system morphemes do not. In the model, the role of the Embedded Language is to provide content morphemes in constituents that are mixed (Auer, 2005). The Matrix Language Frame model comprises of two principles that act as theorems for the languages that are involved. The two principles are: the morpheme order principle and the system morpheme principle. The Morpheme order principle sates that morpheme order within a bilingual clause comes from one language while the System morpheme principle states that one type of system morpheme should be derived from one of the participating languages. If summarized, the Matrix Language Frame model means that languages that are involved do not have to play equal roles in bilingual reconstruction (Namba, 2002). The Matrix Language Frame model has four main hypotheses: the Matrix Language Hypothesis, Blocking hypothesis, embedded language trigger hypothesis and Embedded Language Hierarchy Hypothesis. The matrix hypothesis states that the matrix language defines the grammatical structure of all the assembly and matrix language. The blocking hypothesis states that the Matrix Language blocks the usage of any embedded language morphemes that do not meet the expected grammatical standards. The embedded language Island Trigger Hypothesis does not allow use of embedded language without permission. The Embedded Language Implication Hierarchy Hypothesis states that optional Embedded Language island occur (Myers-Scotton, 1993). The principles held and presented by the Model Language Frame were however criticized by MacSwan (2000). It was observed that code switching was a union of two lexicons and there were constraints code switching apart from those created by the grammar of the participating languages. Additionally, he criticized that the matrix language may not be easily pointed out due to lack of clarity presented by the two morphemes. It is pointed out that the matrix language can change from sentence to sentence depending on the conversation and this was the main basis of the critic. Despite the criticism, studies on the model are ongoing. 4 M Models The 4M model is mostly believed to be an advancement of the Matrix Language Frame but it is not. It is a different model that deals with morpheme classification and its application to language. As explained by Namba (2002), the model classifies, on the basis of the stage of activation at the formulator and the mental lexicon, the system morphemes into three main categories: late system morphemes, early system morphemes and content morphemes. The content morphemes are similar to those in the Matrix Language Frame because they are differentiated depending on the whether they can assign thematic roles or not. Early system morphemes are defined as system morphemes that are not activated at the lemma level. They do not have a thematic role but are relevant in defining the structure of the concepts and include words such as plurals, prepositions and determiners. The late system morphemes are divided into two categories and are different from the two morphemes discussed above. Their activation is done at the formulator level. These are divided into two: the late bridge system morphemes and the late outsider system morphemes. The bridge systems morphemes are useful in the integration of the content morphemes into bigger statements. The late outsider morphemes are usually at the surface level. The difference between the outsider and bridge morphemes is the fact that the bridge morphemes do not rely on the grammatical information that is not in their maximal projection. The 4M model supports the Modern Language Frame model in the cases of classic code switching (Namba, 2002). Equivalence constraint and the free morpheme constraint These two constraints were defined by Poplack (1980) and are the building blocks of code switching and are based on the word order of languages that are to be switched. They define situations that can allow for code switching and those that do not. The Equivalence constraint states that code switching takes place only if the constituent’s surface order is similar for all other languages involved. This denotes that switched statements are made up of fragments from alternating languages that are linked according to the language structure of the languages. Each of these statements must relay its grammatical meaning and structure without omission and duplication of content. The main point is that code switching is possible for languages whose structure is similar or can be mapped into each other. Free morpheme constraint is one of the most discussed constraints in the study of literature and linguistics. The constraint states that code switching cannot take place between a free morpheme and a bound morpheme unless the free morpheme is phonologically integrated into the bound morpheme’s language. A free morpheme is a word that can stand independently while a bound morpheme is one that cannot. Free morphemes include simple and compound words while examples of bound morphemes are –ment, –able and dis-. This means that code switching can occur at the point in the discourse where it is possible to make a constituent of the surface to be cut and remain as a free morpheme. Code switching will happen if the words that are switched will not violate the syntax of involved language. An example is the fact that it is impossible to switch English nouns with Spanish adjectives because of the differences in the syntax of Spanish and English writing. In Spanish, the adjective follows the noun while in English the adjective comes before the noun. An example is the statement ‘an extravagant painting’ which is ‘una pintura extravagante’ in Spanish. Therefore, code switching should be done on words that will not affect the syntaxical order of the languages. According to Poplack (1980), the equivalent constraint has been verified by different authors in differing bilingual communication regions. For example Eze (1998) who researched on the effectiveness of the constraint between the Igbo-English communication in Nigeria and Turpin (1998) who verified that equivalent constraint is a common occurrence among the French-English speakers. A different study by Jalil (2009) who sought to verify the validity of the two constraints the English -Portuguese bilingual communication also concluded that the two constraints were applicable to the communication. He also added that the consequent effect that the constraints have on intersectional code switching is confirmed. Therefore, the free morphemes and equivalence constraints have been proved to be true as far as code switching is concerned. The Abstract level model This model is an extension of the Matrix Frame Language model and both models relate to the classic code switching. It determines the sufficient congruence that allows for code switching. The abstract level theory points out three main areas in abstract lexical structuring of grammar. These include the lexical-conceptual structure, the predicate argument structure and the morphological patterns. The morphological patterns include word order, the lexical conceptual structure includes the semantic factors and the predicate argument includes the relationship between the themes and the arguments presented. According to Myers-Scotton (2002), effective code switching will happen if there is congruence between the Matrix and Embedded Languages at all levels of the abstract grammatical structure. Whenever embedded language and matrix language are code switched, the congruence of the two languages must be checked in all the three levels of the abstract language model levels. If there is no congruence, the blocking hypothesis is applied. This hypothesis states that an embedded language morpheme that does not match with the matrix language is blocked by a blocking filter. However, if the congruency is insufficient, alternative strategies are used to allow for code switching such as embedded language islands, bare forms and do verb constructions. List of References Auer, P & Muhamedova, R 2005, Embedded language’and ‘matrix language’in insertional language mixing: Some problematic cases. Rivista di Linguistica, Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 35-54. Barnard, R & McLellan, J 2013, Codeswitching in University English-medium Classes: Asian Perspectives, Multilingual Matters, Vol. 36. Brisk, M, & Proctor, C 2012, Challenges and supports for English language learners in bilingual programs, Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, vol. 94, no. 115. Buja, E 2008, attitudes toward bilingualism: a case study of the Moldovan-Russian bilinguals, Transylvania University of Brasov, Romania. Chan, HS, 2009, Code-switching between typologically distinct languages, Cambridge University Press, England. Dasko, D 2003, Public attitudes towards multiculturalism and bilingualism in Canada, in Canadian and French perspectives on diversity: Conference proceedings, Gatineau, Quebec. Eze, E 1998, Lending credence to a borrowing analysis: Lone English-origin incorporations in Igbo discourse. International Journal of Bilingualism, Vol. 2, no.2, pp. 183-201 Jalil, SA 2009, Grammatical perspectives on code-switching, ReVEL, Vol 7, no. 13 Julca-Guerrero, F 2009, Word borrowing and code switching in Ancash Waynu Songs, Language, meaning and Society, University of Texas. MacSwan, J 2005, Code switching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”. Bilingualism: language and cognition, vol 8 no.1. pp. 1-22. Matras, Y 2000, Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers, University Of Manchester, Vol. 4 • no. 4 •pp. 505-528. Namba, K 2002, An overview of Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame model. Tokai University Shimizu, pp. 1-10. Poplack, S 2001, Code-switching (linguistic). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, pp. 2062-2065. Ruan, J 2003, a Study of Bilingual Chinese/English Children's Code Switching Behaviour, University Of Oklahoma, Vol.7, No 1. Rodriguez-Galindo, A, & Jo W 2006, “Mi hija vale dos personas: Latino Immigrant Parents’ Perspectives about Their Children’s Bilingualism.” Bilingual Research Journal, Vol 30, no.2 pp. 579-601. Turpin, D. 1998. "Le français c'est le last frontier": The status of English origin nouns in Acadian French. International Journal of Bilingualism Vol 2 no. 2, pp. 221-33. . . Read More