There are several theories and hypotheses about how the relationship between two languages affects their ability to be combined within a single utterance. Researchers have used their own methods of analyzing the conditions for code-switching structures. They have studied which switches are allowed and why. It has been determined that every language combination has its own set of rules and limitations, some of which may be broken, and some languages are easier to incorporate into each other than others.
Typology categorizes language structures, relating languages to each other based on how similar their basic word order is. The closer two languages are typologically, the easier it will be for the speaker to merge their structures with fewer boundaries. The more typologically distant two languages are, the more constraints there are to switches. For example, a language like Japanese has a Subject-Object-Verb sentence structure while languages like English are Subject-Verb-Object structured. On the other hand, there are languages like Spanish which can be more flexible in their word order. Even though Spanish is mainly Subject-Verb-Object, it can be Subject-Object-Verb in some cases. Winford uses the languages Cree and French to demonstrate this, stating: “The very different typological structures of the Cree VP would therefore constitute a stronger barrier to the incorporation of French elements” Winford 2003: (192).
The equivalence constraint postulates boundaries on switching that only permits it where the two languages’ structures overlap. However, this limitation is not set in stone. There are instances where languages are typologically distinct, leading to clashes in structure, causing this constraint to fail. As a result, speakers structure their sentences in ways that violate this constraint. When the structures of the two languages clash within a code-switching utterance, the result could be the omission of the clashing morpheme, or the switch will follow the rules of one language even if it violates the rules of the other (Winford 2003: 128).
Muysken links parameter setting models to typological differences. Mixing patterns depend on “the linguistic typology of the languages concerned.” (Muysken 2000: 53) The permissibility of switches can depend on how we consider the constituents of an utterance. Equivalence can be applied in different conceptions, allowing certain switches in some cases but not permitting them in others. In this example from page 117 of Bilingual Speech, Muysken discusses how from a linear conception, this switch would not be permissible by the equivalence constraint because of the incongruent word order.
(84)
1. Now / Mary eats an apple.
2. Nu / eet Marie een appel.
(85)
1. Now [CLAUSE Mary eats]
2. Nu [CLAUSE eet Marie]
The simple sentences are highly congruent and are of the same typological category, making a switch capable for each morpheme. A slightly more complex sentence presents limited switching ability in this case. However, when the constituents are clausal, the switch is permissible.
In Language Choices, Muysken discusses Congruent lexicalization. Congruent lexicalization occurs when “two languages share a grammatical structure which can be filled lexically with elements from either language” (Pütz 1997: 362). This can be exemplified in Spanish-English code-switching. Spanish and English have similar grammatical structures (both can be Subject-Verb-Object), and therefore are close in typology. This allows for more switching under the equivalence constraint because there is a greater chance that their structures will overlap. The greater the overlap, the fewer the constraints. He likens congruent lexicalization to style or register shifting due to lack of structural constraint (Pütz 1997: 362).
In conclusion, typological distance and the equivalence constraint correlate where the greater the distance, the greater the structural boundaries of code-switching. However, how it is decided which parts of an utterance are equal is also a factor. How the constituents are counted can determine whether there are equal and could be considered part of the overlap of the structures. “… approaches based on Poplack’s equivalence constraint appeal to congruence at the level of surface structure to account for the appearance of multi-word switches” (Winford 2003: 158). Winford states that the examples from Sankoff and Poplack suggest that the rules that code-switching utterances follow are determined “at times from one language and at times from the other” (Winford 2003: 129).
References
Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pütz, Martin. 1997. Language choices: Conditions, constraints, and consequences. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Winford, Donald. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Commentaires