|
Definitions
>> juxtaposition of two codes (languages) if perceived and interpreted
as a locally meaningful event by participants; discourse-related; CS as
an unmarked choice leaves language choice open (Auer 1995, 1998)
>> the alternative use of 2 languages either within a sentence or between
sentences; CS involves more than single lexical items (in contrast to transference,
interference or borrowing); promoted by sociolinguistic factors (function)
and/or trigger words (form) (Clyne 1980, 1987)
>> the use of two languages in one clause or utterance; different from
lexical borrowing;
CS is eased by neutralising system conflicts via
- no tight relation between elements/paratactic switching
- equivalence
- switched element is "morphologically encapsulated"
- homophonous diamorph (Muysken 1995)
>> the alternation of two languages within a single discourse, sentence
or constituent; switched item(s) may or may not be integrated phonologically
or syntactically into base language (but not phonologically, morphologically
and syntactically, cf. borrowing) (Poplack 1980)
>> conversational CS: the meaningful juxtaposition within the same speech
exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different (perceived as
contrasting) grammatical systems or subsystems; a pragmatic or stylistic
phenomenon in which verbal sequences are chunked into contrastable units;
contrasts with diglossia and with borrowing; code selection is largely
subconscious; main concern: communicative effect; CS conveys semantically
significant information in verbal interaction; matter of conversational
interpretation (Gumperz 1982)
>> user is bilingual to some degree (in contrast to borrowing) and competent
in the syntactic rules of both languages; no third grammar required; combination
of rules follows certain constraints (Pfaff 1979)
>> cover term for interlingual / language-contact phenomena (= borrowing,
language mixing / interference, pidginisation); may occur at particular
linguistic levels, not only wholesale [= "undercover switches"] (in contrast
to Auer (1995) who refers to this type as style-shifting and contrasts
it with CS [both use the same example: London Jamaican Creole]); unmarked
CS: range of variation, highly individualistic phenomenon (Gardner-Chloros
1995)
>> defined socially and syntactically; cover term for code changing
(= Clyne 1987: CS) and code mixing (= Clyne 1987: transference) (Wentz
& McClure 1977)
>> 'switches' / 'switching sites' used as a cover term; occasionally
synonym w/ 'code mixing', i.e. no systematic distinction between switching
and mixing (DiSciullo et al. 1986)
Functions
discourse-related functions (Auer 1995)
social reasons (Woolford 1983)
Distinctions (types of CS)
ALTERNATIONAL VS. INSERTIONAL (Auer 1998, inter alia)
-- alternational: usually at syntactic clause boundaries; involves
renegotiation of language of interaction
-- insertional: on small constituent; does not threaten language
of interaction; matter of choice, not rule-governed
SITUATIONAL VS. METAPHORICAL (Blom/Gumperz 1972)
-- situational switching: redefines a situation (= change in
governing norms / participants / strategies)
-- metaphorical switching: change in topical emphasis; enriches
a situation (= allusion to more than one social relationship within the
situation)
RAGGED VS. CLEAN (Hasselmo 1974, Clyne 1987)
-- ragged switch: point of switch cannot be determined unambiguously,
due to borrowed item/trigger word/gray area around onset of switch
-- clean switch: point of switch can be determined unambiguously
INTRASENTENTIAL VS. INTERSENTENTIAL VS. EXTRASENTENTIAL
-- intrasentential: intimate CS, 'true' CS, mainly used by balanced
bilinguals (in-group members) (Poplack 1980); draws on the grammar of both
languages (Salmons 1990); assumed to be insertional; no motivation for
distinction between (intrasentential) CS and nonce borrowings (Myers-Scotton
1995)
-- intersentential: switching between sentences (Poplack 1980)
-- extrasentential: emblematic CS, tag-CS; mainly used by non-fluent
bilinguals (non-group members) (Poplack 1980); usually tags, interjections;
items without direct equivalents in the other language (Salmons 1990)
Level on which CS is assumed to occur:
deep structure phenomenon (Woolford 1983)
surface structure phenomenon (Clyne 1987)
pre-syntactic, lexically based; not surface level phenomenon; explanation
for suface CS configurations lies in language production processes which
are lexically based (Myers-Scotton 1995)
Suggested constraints
contextual constraints: setting (ecological surroundings), social situations
(particular activities and participants within a setting), social events
(limited range of topics within a situation); due to an interaction of
linguistic/stylistic and social factors (Blom/Gumperz 1972)
discourse constraint: violation of semantic constraints possible if
due to discourse/social functions (Pfaff 1979)
SYNTACTIC CONSTRAINTS
government constraint: switching is possible only between elements
not related to government; absolute constraint with precedence over all
other constraints; applies at the level of universal grammar (DiSciullo
et al. 1986)
syntactic constraint: whenever a phrase structure rule unique to one
language is used to expand a node, the terminal nodes created by the application
of that rule can only be filled from the lexicon of that language; applies
within universal grammar (Woolford 1983)
equivalence constraint/structural-integrity constraint: syntax on either
side of the switch must be grammatical for the languages concerned (applies
to surface structure of sentence, i.e. relies on linear sequence, not on
hierarchical structures); proposed to hold for the majority of cases, exceptions
are possible (Sankoff & Poplack 1979, Poplack 1980)
structural constraint: shared surface structures are favored for switches;
adjective switching is restricted (but not totally excluded) where English
and Spanish adjective positions are in contrast (Pfaff 1979)
syntactic and pragmatic constraints:
- the longer the contrasting phrase the more natural the switch;
-switched conjunction goes with second phrase [counterevidence in Toni]
- idiomatic expressions are not usually broken up
- syntactic constraints probably motivated by surface form or pragmatic
aspects rather than by purely structural/grammatical factors (Gumperz 1982)
LEXICAL CONSTRAINTS
lexical/morphological constraint: general constraint on switchability
of closed-class items (determiners, quantifiers, prepositions, tense morhphemes,
complementizers, pronouns) (Joshi 1984) [cf. Myers-Scotton 1995: elements
of this type are used to determine matrix language - possibly due to their
assumed non-switchability]
ML/EL constraints (lexical/morphological): - ML provides content and
system morphemes, EL provides content morphemes only (except for EL islands);
- Blocking Hypothesis: an EL content morpheme is blocked if not congruent
with corresponding ML morpheme (Myers-Scotton 1995)
MORPHOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
functional constraint: switches to morphologically unadapted English
verbs permitted only if preceded by an inflected Spanish verb or tense/aspect
is overtly marked elsewhere in the sentence (Pfaff 1979)
free morpheme constraint: CS possible after any constituent that is
not a bound morpheme (unless the lexical constituent is phonologically
integrated); proposed to hold for the majority of cases, exceptions are
possible (Sankoff & Poplack 1979, Poplack 1980)
morphological constraint: no word-internal CS (Woolford 1983)
SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS
semantic constraint: certain English adverbs (mainly manner adverbs)
'do not combine well' with Hindi verbs (DiSciullo et al. 1986)
semantic constraints: in figurative and temporal PPs, the whole PP is
switched; in locative PPs: switch after P (Pfaff 1979)
Counterevidence
counterevidence to free morpheme constraint (Poplack), to semantic
PP-constraint (Pfaff);
government constraint (Di Sciullo et al., Woolford): violated by cases
of anticipational triggering; structural-integrity constraint/equivalence
constraint (Sankoff & Poplack, Poplack): generally affirmed by data;
but: speaker's syntactic rules often overlap because syntactic convergence
has taken place; consequential triggering can violate all constraints (Clyne
1987)
government constraint cannot be maintained (due to counterevidence);
constraints must be considered as probabilistic (= Poplack's approach)
(Muysken 1995)
no grammatical constraints observed which remain unviolated (Gardner-Chloros
1995)
constraints are impossible to define in cases where language choice
is kept open (Auer 1995)
| Kommunikativer Sozialer Stil (TP8) |
Kommunikativer sozialer Stil bezeichnet das globale Repertoire eines
gruppenspezifischen Ausdrucksverhaltens. Die linguistischen Eigenschaften
des kommunikativen sozialen Stils, die über die engen Grenzen von
„Sprechstil“, „Fach-“ oder auch „Gruppensprache“ hinaus eine Vielzahl pragmatischer
Aspekte beinhalten (z.B. Regeln des Sprechens, Höflichkeit), grenzen
an andere Zeichensysteme (Nonverbalität, Kleidung, Schmuck) an. Die
Gruppen, die solche Stile entwickeln, sind konstituiert als „soziale Welten“
oder „Milieus“ in gesellschaftlichen Kontexten. Kommunikative soziale Stile
sind also sozusagen die diskursiven Regeln, die Strauss (1978) als wesentlich
für das Entstehen sozialer Kernbereiche („Welten“) ansieht. Die Gruppen
sind keineswegs homogen, sondern bieten an ihren Grenzen eine außerordentliche
Dynamik auf. Gruppenmitglieder sind typischerweise in verschiedenen Welten
zu Hause. In den Gruppen gibt es typischerweise Leitfiguren (Repräsentanten),
die das Ausdrucksverhalten prägen und verändern.
In Betrieben (oder allgemeiner: Institutionen) scheint es nun so zu
sein, dass sich soziale Welten in stärkerem Maße voneinander
abgrenzen (lassen), weil die gesellschaftliche Struktur rigideren Vorgaben
unterliegt. Das Vorhandensein von Abteilungen und von Hierarchie ist gleichsam
ein identitätskonstitutiver Faktor. Die Ausprägung von Welten
und entsprechendem Ausdrucksverhalten ist in horizontaler und vertikaler
Richtung dieser Gesellschaft möglich: Arbeiter haben bspw. einen eigenen
kommunikativen Stil, der ihre soziale Welt festigt und repräsentiert
und der sich typischerweise in verschiedenen Fabriken nachweisen lässt.
Gleiches gilt für die international agierende Managementebene. Andererseits
prägen auch die Belegschaftsmitglieder von Abteilungen „ihr“ Ausdrucksverhalten
aus, unter dem Einfluss bestimmter Leitpersonen (verdiente, beliebte, geachtete
Angestellte sowie der/die Chefin). Dies kann im übrigen auf höherer
Ebene auch für den Gesamtbetrieb angenommen werden (Stichworte: Organisationskultur,
Firmenideologie) und sticht in besonderer Weise im metakommunikativen Lehr-Lern-Diskurs
hervor (z.B. Kommunikationstraining).
Ein dritter Aspekt ist die quer zu dieser horizontalen und vertikalen
Dimension stilistischer Variation verlaufende Ausprägung von kommunikativen
„Arbeitsstilen“. Arbeitsstile sind eine dem kommunikativem sozialen Stil
untergeordnete Kategorie. An Gesprächen nehmen häufig Personen
aus unterschiedlichen Gruppen teil (was Hierarchie, Ausbildung, Zugehörigkeit
zu Abteilungen usw. betrifft); die Zusammensetzung der Teilnehmer wechselt
von Aufgabe zu Aufgabe. Arbeitsstile sind in diesem Zusammenhang primär
ein Resultat der Bewältigung von Arbeitsaufgaben, etwa der Problemlösung,
der gemeinsamen Beurteilung, des Informationsaustauschs. Aus einem Bündel
von Arbeitsstilen kann evtl. ein kommunikativer sozialer Stil entstehen.
Dieser ist dann jedoch nicht primär über Identität und Abgrenzung
definiert, sondern in erster Linie berufspraktisch. Es hat den Anschein,
dass es sich bei dieser Auflösung diskursiver Welten um ein an Relevanz
zunehmendes gesellschaftliches Phänomen handelt, das linguistisch
reflektiert wird und das in Zusammenhang mit Entwicklungen der New Economy
und des New Capitalism steht (vgl. Wittel 2001).
|
