Talk:Code-switching/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Delete Occurrences section?

The section 'Occurrences' cites no sources whatsoever; it appears to contain only "original research" in the form of anecdotes about individual editors' experiences. In addition, it is really little more than a list of trivia, which adds nothing to the article as a whole. I suggest that the entire section should be removed. Please respond here if you disagree.Cnilep (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I have removed the section. If you 'undo' the change, please justify the action here. Cnilep (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being called deletion-happy, I'd like to suggest that the External links are also non-informative. There are two academic papers (one by Skiba and one by Sert), but the primary virtue of each seems to be simply that they are on-line. A cursory glance at each reveals nothing particularly wrong with them, but neither are they quite at the level of the references or the bibliography. The remaining items - a blog posting, a comedian's web page(!), an out-dated link to a television program, and an advocacy web page - have nothing to recommend them. Again, this entire section could be removed without reducing the information content of the page. Please respond here if you disagree. Cnilep (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again without objection, I removed External links. If you undo the change, please justify the action here. Cnilep (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

At 13:15, 13 March 2009 an anonymous user at 92.16.206.185 (talk) added the following to the introduction:

"Code-switching is very common among British Asians in the UK."

As discussed above, the past list of occurrences was removed since it represented trivia and original research. Reference to a single occurrence, among the thousands around the world, certainly does not belong in the introduction. Cnilep (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories versus See also

On 8 January 2009, the tag {Category:Macaronic language} was added to the article. At that time, a link to Macaronic language already existed, under the heading of "See also".

I would argue that code-switching is not within a category of Macaronic language, though the two phenomena are certainly closely related. Therefore, I assert that the "See also" link should stand, but the "Category" link should be removed.

From the Wikipedia:Categorization editing guideline:

Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:

• If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more, on the subject of the category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category?
• Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
• Does the category fit into the overall system?

For types of categories that should generally be avoided, see: Overcategorization

If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then the category is probably not the right one.

I suggest that the answer to question three, at least, is "no." Therefore, if I hear no objections, I will remove the categorization and leave the See also link in place. Cnilep (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Roger (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the category, as discussed above. Cnilep (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Code Mixing

On 26 February 2009 an anonymous user at 147.8.18.237 edited the introduction to read "Code-switching, also know as code-mixing, can occur between sentences (intersentential) or within a single sentence (intrasentential)." Although some linguists discuss code switching as a type of code mixing (e.g. Bokamba 1989), many discuss the two as separate phenomena (e.g. Muysken 2000, Genesee 2000). I have therefore removed the language equating the two, since this is a controversy within the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnilep (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that our very own Code mixing page is a redirect to here, until such a time as a separate page perhaps will be created for it, it's probably best to just mention it here. On a side-note, we could have a paragraph on this article mentioning how the term "code mixing", whilst often synonymous with code switching, can signify something subtly different too. Licqua (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur that such a paragraph might make a useful addition. A simple appositive suggesting that the two are identical is probably not sufficient, though. Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that I put up something at Code mixing in place of the redirect. That page is currently woefully inadequate, but I trust that other users will contribute to it over time. Cnilep (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I added two sentences on the difference between code-switching and code mixing. I worry, though, that the phrase "actual language use" may be confusing to readers not familiar with the competence versus performance argument. Any suggestions for improving the language? Cnilep (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The edits from Mhazard9 seem to have helped with this. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

General versus straight introduction

On 13 March 2009 Nihil novi created a new section, General, consisting of most of what had previously been the introduction. I restored this information to the general introduction, since I feel that three sentences were insufficient to introduce the topic. General information is most often included before the TOC and the jump to specific sections. Thanks are due to Nihil novi for other improvements to the page's layout and style. I have left these intact.

On 14 March 2009 Licqua made substantial changes to the General section. Among these, I found three to be either controversial (not universally accepted among linguists) or off-topic (not directly related to code switching). I also removed these during the revision to straight introduction. The three revised elements were (1) use of the specialized term lect in place of Variety (linguistics), (2) discussion of the differences between code switching and pidgin, and (3) an assertion that code switching "occurs when the speakers are fluent in both languages (or lects)." Thanks are due to Licqua for other, less controversial additions, which I have left intact. Cnilep (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Hybrid language:

This article [that is, Hybrid language] doesn't cite any sources; I don't know that any exist. I've been an academic linguist for more than ten years, but I've only ever heard the term "hybrid language" applied to computer languages and the like. I don't think that it's a standard term in the field of linguistics.

I have removed the reference and the link to Hybrid language from the introduction. I've also restored some of the introduction removed by User:Licqua on 14 March. Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009 edits

I trust that this will not become an edit war, but I have again reverted some of the edits that User:Licqua made. Rather than undoing those changes, I have made a few specific changes, as described here.

I have again removed language equating code-switching and code mixing, since some linguists treat them as distinct phenomena. I also removed the term code-shifting, which seems to be more widely used in creole studies than in treatments of code-switching (though it is used in other discussions of language contact).

I have also again removed the specialized term lect and restored the term Variety (linguistics) for reasons discussed in past discussions, above.

I have returned mention of the difference between syntactic and sociolinguistic treatments to the introduction. The differing perspectives and discussions of code-switching in sociolinguistics and in syntax or other elements of "core" linguistics is an important distinction within the field of linguistics. I believe it is certainly relevant and should be treated in this article. Note that the final two paragraphs in the current intro essentially introduce the sub-sections Motivation and Mechanics. One can argue that these paragraphs should be removed from the introduction, but I don't think they belong after those sections.

Although its relevance to current scholars may be argued, the history of treatment of code-switching as a product of linguistic deficiency, versus its current treatment as a normal, normative behavior is probably important to an encyclopedic treatment. I have therefore restored it.

I also removed Taglish from the See also list. We have previously discussed, and removed, treatments of specific settings, fused lects, etc. Cnilep (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

At 07:49, 18 March 2009 User:Licqua undid my revisions with the explanation, "You undid more than just the things you stated on the talk page." I look forward to discussion here that will allow us to improve this article. I assure all users that I made every effort to describe the changes that I made on March 17-18 in this space; I apologize if any of that was unclear.

I am again removing the section Views and placing most of the information contained there in the introduction. As I have explained more than once, I feel that a two-sentence introduction is insufficient and inconsistent with the norms of similar Wikipedia pages. I have not restored the final two paragraphs of the 17 March version of the introduction, since they have now been removed twice. I have worked most of the information from those paragraphs into the sections Motivations and Mechanics.

I have again removed the term lect from the article and replaced it with the term 'variety'. Past versions of this page have been criticized for using opaque jargon, and I believe lect is such specialized jargon. Note, by the way, that the page lect is simply a redirect to the page Variety (linguistics).

I have again removed the term code-mixing from the first sentence. As discussed above, I think we need a fuller explanation of how the term code-mixing is used in the field, and the implication that code-switching and code-mixing are identical is misleading. I have also removed the terms code-shifting and 'linguistic hybrid', which are not standard terms in linguistics.

I think that this is a full listing of changes I made. If I missed any, please feel free to ask about them here so that we can discuss them. Cnilep (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The changes look good. The only suggestion I have is giving some indication of when academics considered code-switching to be substandard. As it is, we only imply that they are not contemporary. kwami (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits sound sensible. The only suggestion that I was going to make after reading through was the same one as Kwamikagami, funnily enough. Knepflerle (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In-line references

The page currently uses a mixture of in-line references with the <ref> tag and parenthetical references. These should be converted to in-line refs in order to comply with preferred Wikipedia style. I will undertake these changes over the next few weeks as I have time, but would appreciate help from other users. Cnilep (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Not-very) Selected Bibliography

I have renamed the section that was previously labeled "References"; it is now "Selected Bibliography". Most of the items actually referred to in the body of the article are listed in the "Notes" section. The problem with the "Selected Bibliography" as it now stands is that it is not as selective as it should be. While I think the coverage of formal studies is pretty good, sociolinguistic studies are probably over-represented. If there are important formal or applied-linguistic studies that are missing, please let us know about that, too. There are now 36 items in the bibliography; I think it should be closer to a dozen. Cnilep (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. It's now seven items, four of which come from sociolinguistics or linguistic anthropology (but two of those (Alvarez 1999, Bailey 1999) are page and a half definitions from Journal of Linguistic Anthropology's "Key terms" issue). Most of what I removed were duplicated in the "Notes" section. Cnilep (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The novel Yo-Yo Boing! has been added to, and then removed from various sections of the page many times. Although some literary critics have described Yo-Yo Boing! as a "code-switching" novel, Giannina Braschi does not use that term anywhere in the book that I can find. Note that in the specialized vocabulary of linguistics, which this article treats, code-switching is not the same as Spanglish or similar mixed varieties. See Code mixing#Code mixing as fused lect. Cnilep (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Language and Communication

Thanks to User:Caitybeth for adding the section Language and Communication. Studies of code-switching in the fields of communication theory, psycholinguistics, and language education are all necessary and important. The section Caitybeth added touches on each of these. However, there are several problems with the section as it currently stands.

• Grammar and style. I edited the first two paragraphs, including the bulleted list, in an attempt to make the grammar more standard and the style both easier to understand and consistent with the rest of the article. I did not edit the subsequent two paragraphs. Attention is welcome.
• References. The first paragraph references Ottenheimer 2009, but I happen to know that the section referenced makes no mention of code-switching or of bilingualism. I am not familiar with the other works cited, but will look into them. Please cite relevant sources for the discussion in the section.
• Consistency. The last two paragraphs, each labeled "Language response to code-switching", are not obviously related to the prior two paragraphs. They also do not seem to use the same definition of code-switching as the rest of this article does. Can these be made relevant to the rest of the article, or do they need to be removed?

Thanks again for these valuable additions. I hope that together we all can improve the section. Cnilep (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm happy to see how quickly my call for additional sources was answered. There are, however, serious problems with some of the sources suggested.

• Ottenheimer 2009 deals with social and, to a lesser extent, grammatical aspects of codeswitching. She does not cite psycholinguistic research or refer to comprehension of switched forms. Ottenheimer does write, "Codeswitching works best when all individuals present know all of the languages or dialects that are being used" (p. 307). She does not, however, describe individual psycholinguistic factors that might affect comprehension or production.
• Auer 1995 focuses on the pragmatics of code-switching - in fact, that's the title of the article. I don't recall any discussion of phonological overlap or speed of comprehension in the article.
• Benson 2001 does not discuss written codeswitching at all, though she does extensively discuss writing about codeswitching. Therefore the article is not an appropriate citation for the role of homography in language recognition.

I trust that the other sources cited in this section (Leeds-Hurwitz 1993; Wheeler 2008; Wheeler & Swords 2001) are represented appropriately here. I have not yet read them. Cnilep (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the three problematic citations described above and added a {{fact}} tag to one sentence, rather than a {{refimprove}} header on the section. Please help find some relevant citations for the claims made here. Cnilep (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the two paragraphs describing "Language response to code-switching", discussed above. Cnilep (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at Leeds-Hurwitz 1993. It is a work of semiotics which defines codes as groups of signs. The codes Leeds-Hurwitz discusses, in fact, are non-linguistic sign systems. She does not discuss code switching at all. I've therefore removed the citation, and restored the {{noref}} tag. I'm also moving the section Language and Communication lower on the page, since it is so poorly sourced, and not obviously relevant to the rest of the page. Cnilep (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Recent research"

The section Recent research misrepresents the current state of the field. It is true that English is disproportionately represented in code switching literature, especially that produced in Anglophone countries. (This is true of much linguistic research, by the way.) The implication that research of non-Anglophone code switching is a recent development, however, is simply untrue. Some of the earliest research on code switching is Espinoza's (1909, 1911) work on Spanish. There has been a huge body of work on code switching in Africa (e.g. Myers-Scotton 1993; Blomaert 1992). Switching between Mandarin and either other Chinese dialects or other world languages has been studied for at least a decade (e.g. Gibbons 1983), though it can be hard to see that literature against the English-Chinese switching literature (e.g. Wei & Milroy 1995, Ng 2004). The work of Su Hsi-Yao and of Brian Hok-Sing Chan sounds very interesting, but I am not convinced that they rise to a level of notoriety that warrants inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this page cannot list all recent, interesting work on code switching.

It is simply not true that most scholars understand "code-switching may indicate a lack of competence on the part of the speaker". Even if Chan 2009 makes such an assertion (I've not yet read it), this would be a minority view at odds with most of the field.

The description of "written code-switching ... said to have existed since ancient times" sounds a lot like work on Macaronic language in literary studies.

I think this section needs to be removed, or else supported with more mainstream sources.

(As an aside, personally I consider Spanglish and similar forms to be mixed languages, not instances of code switching. As we have discussed here, though, there are scholars who do not carefully distinguish the two. See Code mixing.) Cnilep (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at Su (2008) and Chan (2009). Neither claims that a focus on Mandarin and Taiwanese is a recent development in the field. Chan does claim that there has been recent interest on code switching in pop music, but he positions this interest in a wider tradition of research on the discourse functions of code switching. Also, Chan does not suggest that code switching results from a lack of competence. Rather, his views on this issue are very much within the mainstream of code switching research; he builds on much of the same literature cited here.

If I hear no counter-arguments, I will remove the section Recent research as an unsupported minority POV. Cnilep (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section, for the reasons discussed above. Cnilep (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Code-switching is the syntactically and phonologically appropriate use of multiple linguistic varieties."

I wasn't aware "code-switching" was considered "appropriate" (or "innapropiate" - although I've seen some scholars with negative attitudes towards it). There is no standard of what a phrase involving code-switching could consist of. "Je doit voir mon baby" is an example of code-switching (Between English and French) that I've just made up on the spot - yet is it less "appropriate"? Licqua (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The notion of acceptability is a hugely important one in formal studies of grammaticality, especially among syntacticians. Appropriateness is also frequently appealed to in computational linguistics, and in other linguistic subfields. Note that "appropriate" in this sense refers not to social standards but to (theories of) grammatical or pragmatic acceptability or correctness.

While there may not be universally shared social norms "of what a phrase involving code-switching could consist of," there are attempts to understand the limits of grammatical possibilities for code-switched phrases, etc. Most of these are listed in the Mechanics section.

I'm not sure if I've understood your objection. If these arguments don't seem to address your concerns, could you please rephrase them? Cnilep (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that to a lay user the user of "appropriate" without describing what it means in linguistics makes the statement seem like a value judgement.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy editing

User:Mhazard9 undertook a major copy-edit of the page on 14 April 2009. Like most Wikipedia pages, this one is in sore need of copy editing and the attention is appreciated. Unfortunately, some of the changes resulted in either mis-statements about the current state of code-switching research (mostly by dint of removing weasel words), and some changes actually made the prose less clear - in my opinion at least. I also felt that the revised version was somewhat over-punctuated and used too many italics. Of course, this may simply be a difference of style between Cnilep and Mhazard9, and should probably be considered by third-party editors.

In an attempt to clear up all of this, I copied Mhazard9's version into a file, then used the WP:UNDO feature and pasted the changes back where I thought them most appropriate. In addition, I made some specific copy-edits that I feel are intermediate between Mhazard9's version and the previous version. I hope that the resulting version is clear and consistent. Cnilep (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous user at IP 64.105.84.97 restored some of the changes that I undid. I have once again reverted a few of these, mostly those that changed meaning in ways that misrepresent the field. For example, 64.105.84.97 wrote, "Sociolinguistics studies the social motivations for code-switching..." Not all sociolinguists study code-switching, and not all who do so consider motivation. I therefore restored the more accurate, "Some research on code-switching in sociolinguistics studies the social motivations for code-switching." If any of the current prose is unclear, please consult the sources cited, or ask for expert attention rather than changing the prose in ways that may introduce inaccuracy. I have also reduced some over-coordinated sentences to more readable lengths, and placed the in-line refs at the end of the sentence they support. One other plea: Please do not change the content of direct quotations! If quoted material contains a grammatical or stylistic error, mark it with Sic in square brackets. Cnilep (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanglish

The term Spanglish is not a technical term, and generally does not feature in discussions of code switching in linguistics, sociolinguistics, anthropology or sociology. In common parlance it is used variously to refer to mixed language varieties composed of Spanish and English, Chicano English, US Latino Spanish, or various slang registers associated with Latino/Latina subcultures. The word Spanglish is often — though not always — used pejoratively. It is therefore inappropriate, even potentially offensive, for the word to be used on this page.

As verifiable evidence: "[T]here has arisen a hybrid variety of language, often given the slightly derogatory label of Spanglish, which coexists with less mixed forms of Standard English and Standard Spanish and has at least one of the characteristics of an autonomous language: a substantial number of native speakers" (R. Nash, "Spanglish: Language contact in Puerto Rico" American Speech 1970). See also McArthur 1992. Cnilep (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit summarized an example from A.C. Zentella's Growing Up Bilingual as, "That is to say, they speak Spanglish for easier, faster communication."

Zentella actually writes, elsewhere in the volume, "The former members of el bloque call their language behavior 'mixing' or 'talking both,' without negative conotations, and scholars who study bilingual poets and rappers consider it 'the vanguard of polyglot cultural creativity' (Flores and Yudice 1990: 74). But many more people refer to it pejoratively as 'Spanglish,' meaning a deformed linguistic mish-mash" (Zentella 1997: 270). Cnilep (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sociolinguistics class project

I am pleased to see the contributions to this page from a Sociolinguistics class project. I look forward to continued refinements and improvements.

I would like to repeat a call that I made at Talk:Domain Specificity and Metaphorical Code-Switching: There are currently no Metaphorical code-switching, Situational code-switching, or Conversational code-switching pages on English Wikipedia. In addition, users have suggested that the Diglossia page needs better citations. Please consider writing on these topics as well. Cnilep (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Types of switching

Thanks are due to the anonymous editor who supplied a citation for the section 'Types of switching'. The actual text of that citation is, however, slightly controversial. As a footnote to the sentence, "Scholars use different names for various types of code-switching," the editor wrote, "based mainly on Poplack, Shana. (1980) Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18: p. 581-618."

Although professor Poplack's research is very important in the field of code switching research, terms such as "intrasentential switching" were used prior to her 1980 paper (e.g. Gumperz 1978, Pfaff 1979) and are used today by scholars who may not be directly influenced by that paper.

Rather than looking for the original or "main" paper to inspire the four usages described in that section, it is probably best to cite a textbook or edited volume as evidence that the terms are in current use. That is, after all, the claim in the section to which the {{Citation needed}} tag refers. Cnilep (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added a citation of Li Wei's edited volume The Bilingualism Reader, though as far as I can see the term "intra-word switching" is not used by any of the papers in it. I know that the term is used elsewhere. If anyone knows a volume that uses all four terms, please substitute it. Cnilep (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Selected bibliography, yet again

Let me begin by repeating my apology for this edit. As I described at COIN, I meant to rollback an edit and accidentally marked it as vandalism. It was not vandalism. I apologize for my error.

That said, I maintain that my intended action -- to remove Borowski (2010) L'alternance codique from the selected bibliography -- was proper. User:Dodger67 has re-added the item while noting, quite rightly, that I had improperly identified the edit as vandalism.

To the substance of the change: Borowski 2010 is apparently (I haven't been able to locate the book in Google Books, any nearby university library, or WorldCat) a case study of Portuguese-French code-switching in Montreal. It does not appear to be similar in notability to the other books and articles in this bibliography. In the past editors have agreed to strip out most items from the selected bibliography. I submit that this item should also be removed. Cnilep (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing "less notable" works from the list. I know nothing about the particular work listed, thus have no opinion about its notability. Roger (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4