CODE SWITCHING AND

GRAMMATICAL THEORY

Cs defined
Myers scotton ( ) it is the
alternation of linguistic varieties
within the the same conversation.
Milroy and Muyshen (1995) it is the
alternative use of linguistic varieties
by a bilingual of two or more
languages .
Gumperz its tge juxtaposition within
the same speech exchange of
passages of speech belonging ti two

 Or subsystems .
Macswan defines it as the alternative
use of two or more languages within
the same utterance.

Types
Intrasetential
Is the switching of codesoccuring
below sentential boundaries
For eg Ndakafara zvisingaite.He
actually bought me a car for my
birthday.Ndakaita kunge
ndichabhururka nemufaro.
Inter setential
Is switching between sentences
Example - ko ini ndri guru in that

Structural dimensions of cs
In adressinfvthe QN of whether cs is
gorvened or random linguistic
vbehaviour .
Labov (1971) once concluded that's "
none has ever been able to show
that such rapid alternation is
gorvened by any systematic rules or
constraints and we must therefore
describe it as the long way study
over the past there decades .Tus an

 Can occur within a sentence.

DISTINGUISHING CS AND
BORROWING.
Myers scotton ( 1) argues that's a
categorical distinction btwn cs and
borrowing need not be made
because its a mulltifacetaed issue or
rather controversial.
The reason is supported by Gysels

 That a switch or a borrowed item can

not be dertimend because of the
same form they undertake thus they
may be interpreted as either a
borrowed item or a switch depending
on the overall discourse structure.
Ther are more similarities than
differences between the two
concepts .Hence we turn to Eastman
() 1992 who rescues us by

Grammatical theory
It primarily focused on relations
below the sentences level.
Research on grammatical aspects of
codeswitching has focused almost
exclusively on intrasetential
codeswitching.
Early research confined itself to the
grammatical properties of
codeswtching which were naturally
highly language specific .

The free morpheme

constraint
Sankoff and Pollack (1981) study
postulates that a switch may occur
after any constituent in discourse
provided that constituent is not a
bound morpheme.
In other words the notion is that code
switches are allowed within
constituent s so long as the word
order requirements of both
languages are met at s- structure .

 And a bound morpheme unless the

item is phonologically integrated into
the base language .
It prohibits switching between a free
morpheme and a bound morpheme
Example eng Spanish cs
And what a tertualiat was Dios mio
And what a gathering it was my
God .Unlike Estaba -type -ondo su
ensay where type-ing is a

 Is a bound morpheme which can not

be switched
. WEAKNESS
the present study argues that
semantic content of an item should be
considered rather than its
morphological form .
As an alternative to the free
morpheme constraint , a constraint
based on the notion of semantic

The equivalence constraint

It dictates that switches will only
occur at points in discourse where
juxtaposing of L1 and L2 elements
does not violate a syntactic rule of
either language.
So a speaker implicitly obeys the
syntatic rules imposed by tge
4spective grammar ( which in this
model are deemed to share rules
that apply because of particukar

 From one code to the other at points

wher that switch will not violate tge
rules of either grammar.
Eg . Spanish Eng CS. 'Sometimes i
start a sentence in spanish y termino
en espanol' (and finish in spanish)
The switch is made at apoint in the
swntence wher e Spanish
subordinates clause ' y termino en
espanol ' doesnt violate the

 Rules of eng ( which are deemed to

set the framework for the sentence).
The verb terminar is correctly
inflected as termino as the eng verb '
to finish ' would be
The grammar of the surbodinate
clause doesnt violate any
grammmatical rules of Spanish

The constraint on closed

class items .
Joshi (1985)
Acc to ths cnstrnt cloesd classs items
such as detrminers , quantitatives
,peropsitions ,posseives ,aux
,tenses ,helping verbs can not be
switched.
Eg Marathi postposition s cannot be
switched for the eng prepositions
some chairs - war

 *Some chairs on
On some chairs
Thus a switching is impermissible
between a closed class's item and an
open class item

 Criticism
Researchers has argued that the
open or closed class distinction is not
a grammatical notion and therefore
should not impinge on the process of
CS.

The government constraint

Do sciullo and Singh (1986)
Acc to Bhatia this refers to an
independently motivated principle of
grammar ( gvt)
However because a gvt hold between
a verb and its object and btwn a
preposition and its object the
cinstraint predict that a verb or
preposition must be in the language
of its compliments

Example
Spanish eng CS
El no wants to go
* he not want to go
He doesn't want to go
No is negative in spnsh but doesn't
as an element is not present in
spanish

 Criticism
It is argued that's the cnstrnt doesn't
acc for or predict all instances of cs
where bilingual s can at any time cs
with or without gvt.
Chomsky (1995) proposes that the
gvt relation be eliminated from
grammatical theory since the basi c
operations Which depended upon in

 Of feature checking

The functional head

constraint
Toribio (1994)
A switch may not occur btwn a fxnl
head and its complement
In other words switches may not
occur btwn a complementizer ,a
determiner ,an inflection etc (fxnl
head) and its noun phrase and or
verb phrase (its compliment
sentence)
Acc to this cnstrnt a language feature

 Such as case and agreement

If the features do not agree a
Spanish fxnal head and an eng
complement or vice versa then the
switch is blocked
Example

Null theory of CS
Mahootian 1983 , Chan 1999 ,
McEwan 1999 ,2000 and Woolfor
1983.
Assert that cs include no cs specific
rules .
In other words for theory internal
reasons we do not expect the
language faculty to use code
switching specific rules butvrather
expect the observd constraint on

 criticism
Prediction is that switching btwn lang
wher common phrase structure
exists should unifomly result in wellformrd sentences
bhatia (1989) argues that under
apecific conditions of language
contact involving non natives of eng
codes may have the effect of yilsing

 In conclusion the fundamental QN at

issue is whether or not a
grammatical approach to CS is even
aprpriate .Given the variability of CS
and the nature of speech in general
and bilingual speech more
specifically .
Itbseems particlaly diicult to
formulate any kind of universally
applicable principle constraint

 Itvia rather a reflection of human

ability to handle and