Talk:Code-switching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Applied Linguistics Task Force.
 

Code-switching in literature[edit]

As mentioned above, there have been several attempts to add so-called literary code-switching to this article, but no sources seem to describe any of the suggested novels as code-switching. In an attempt to find sources, I came upon work by Elizabeth Gordon and Mark Williams, literature scholars who suggest that when scholars in their field use the term "code-switching" they mean something different from what linguists mean. They write, "So we might say that 'code-switching' has a technical meaning in sociolinguistics but a somewhat different, general meaning when it is used to refer to literature" (1998: 75).

Since this article concerns code-switching as defined in linguistics and sociolinguistics, it is inappropriate to include a section on Code-switching in literature.

Gordon, Elizabeth and Mark Williams. (1998). "Raids on the articulate: code-switching, style shifting, and post-colonial writing." The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 33(2), 75-96.

Cnilep (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I removed the section and added a hatnote directing to Macaronic language. That page lists several examples of "Modern macaronic literature", but could use more exposition. Cnilep (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Field template[edit]

On 16 August I added the template {{Linguistics}} to this page, reasoning that the topic relates to several sub-fields within linguistics (e.g. sociolinguistics, syntax, phonology, language acquisition). On 17 August Stevertigo replaced that template with {{sociolinguistics}}, presumably reasoning that it is more specific and therefore more appropriate. Stevertigo did not use an edit summary, but did comment at User talk:Cnilep/Archive/11 September 2010#Article integration. See also a related discussion at Talk:Code-mixing.

Do other editors have an opinion on which template is most appropriate for this page? Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think {{sociolinguistics}} is appropriate. It's true that code switching/mixing are relevant to other fields of linguistics too, as you said on your talk page, but really only to the extent that those fields interact with socio. The phenomena are primarily related to socio and only secondarily to the other fields. +Angr 15:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Angr.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse (the 'Sociolinguistics' template has been in place for over a month now), but the recently published Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-Switching (ISBN 9780521875912) offers evidence counter to the assertion that code-switching is primarily a sociolinguistic topic. I've not read the volume yet, but I notice that it has five parts of which only one (Part 2, Social aspects of code-switching) is primarily sociolinguistic. Part 3, The structural implications of code-switching, and Part 5, Formal models of code-switching, each deal with aspects of grammar, especially syntax. Part 4 is Psycholinguistics and code-switching. Part 1, Conceptual and methodological considerations in code-switching research, appears to be a general introduction. Cnilep (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

AAVE as "register shift"[edit]

At various times over the past two or three years editors, often anonymous contributors, have added descriptions of code switching in African American communities to this article. Speakers of African American English (also known as Black English, Ebonics, African American Vernacular English (AAVE), etc.) often speak of "code switching," by which they mean either switching from Standard American English (SAE) to AAVE, or the use of a style that has some features of both. This usage occurs in formal literature (e.g. here), but generally outside of linguistics as such.

In July of 2009 I added a paragraph to the lead section noting this common popular usage, giving both Spanglish and AAVE as examples.

On 29 August 2010 an IP user at 76.240.219.1 deleted the mention of AAVE; the user left no edit summary. I reverted the edit, saying, "Content removed w/o explanation." User:Dodger67 then reverted my edit, saying, "That's a register shift - not code-switching."

This claim butts up against two potentially controversial questions. First, must code switching involve two separate languages (e.g. Haugen 1956), or can it occur within dialects of the same language (e.g. Blom and Gumperz 1972, Milroy & Muysken 1995) or even among registers or styles (e.g. Myers-Scotton 1993, Alvarez 2000)? Second, is African American English a language distinct from American English (e.g. Smith 1998), is it a dialect related to other American dialects (e.g. Labov 1972, DeBose 1992, Rickford & Rickford 2000 inter alia), or is it an informal variety and therefore a "register" of American English? In both cases there is some controversy but consensus generally supports the middle ground: AAVE is a dialect, and code switching can and does occur among dialects.

All of this leaves aside the issue of popular usage, by the way. In popular usage among some speakers of AAVE, "code switching" calls to mind the usage of African American English and Standard American English varieties.

I would suggest that we restore the 2009 language or something close to it. We can also cite DeBose (1992) "Codeswitching: Black English and Standard English in the African-American linguistic repertoire" as support for calling such switching "codeswitching." Cnilep (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We must clearly state that calling it code-switching is in fact controversial - with a suitably condensed version of the above by way of explanation.
Myers-Scotton and Alvarez effectively regard register shift to be merely a particular type of code-switching but I have to disagree. Code-switching is the mixing of different languages within a single conversation while register shift is using different varieties of the same language in different conversations (AAVE at home versus "standard" English at work). IMHO the difference is very clear. Roger (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Our own opinions are not really the point; the point is what reliable sources say. Here are some reliable sources that describe code switching between AAVE and other varieties of English.
  • DeBose, Charles (1992). "Codeswitching: Black English and Standard English in the African-American linguistic repertoire". In Eastman, Carol. Codeswitching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 157–167. ISBN 185359167X. 
  • Doss, Richard; Gross, Alan (1994). "The effects of Black English and code-switching on intraracial perceptions". The Journal of Black Psychology 20 (3): 282–293. 
  • Flowers, DA (2000). "Codeswitching and Ebonics in urban adult basic education classrooms". Education and Urban Society 32 (2): 221–236. 
  • Koch, Lisa; Gross, Alan; Kolts, Russell (2001). "Attitudes toward Black English and code switching". The Journal of Black Psychology 27 (1): 29–42. 
  • Greene, Deric; Walker, Felicia (2004). "Recommendations to public speaking instructors for the negotiation of code-switching practices among Black English-speaking African American students". Journal of Negro Education 73 (4): 435–442. 
  • Hobbs, Pamela (2004). "In their own voices: Codeswitching and code choice in the print and online versions of an African-American women's magazine". Women and Language 27 (1): 1–12. 
  • Kendall, Tyler; Wolfram, Walt (2009). "Local and external language standards in African American English". Journal of English Linguistics 37 (4): 305–330. 
  • Scanlon, Michael; Wassink, Alicia Beckford (2010). "African American English in urban Seattle: Accommodation and intraspeaker variation in the Pacific Northwest". American Speech 85 (2): 205–224. 
  • Ervin-Tripp, Susan (2001). "Variety, style-shifting, and ideology". In Eckert, Penelope; Rickford, John. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 44–56. ISBN 0521597897.  (While Ervin-Tripp's title refers to style-shifting, the abstract calls it "code- /style-switching". These are switches within a speech.)
I have not found any sources that call AAVE a register, but this one comes close in its discussion of six registers associated with Black English.
  • Bragdon, Ida Brownlee (1974). "An essay on a linguistic issue: What is Black English?". Journal of Negro Education 43 (3): 265–274. 
Bragdon's prool/cool/spool/pool taxonomy does not appear to have been taken up in subsequent decades. It's therefore a bit WP:FRINGE. Cnilep (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
According to Web of Science, Bragdon has not been cited in any other published work. Cnilep (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mechanics of Code switching[edit]

The Free-morpheme Constraint: code-switching cannot occur between bound morphemes.

Seems that the following example from Russian/Tatar code switching contradicts the previous idea:

  • Да уж, ангельское личико… А задний мосты таралмаганмы сон? Ансы куренми бит… Жибар але бер икесен, в полный рост.
  • Well, angel face… Is the rear axle of her not combed? You can't see it… Send me onw or two, to the full.

where ы is a bound morpheme from Tatar and мост… well it's not a free morpheme. The rule says: no switiching between bound morphemes… Please, study that deeper. 05:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.233.171 (talk)

Another example is with German and English. Past participles in German start with ge-: gehen (go) --> gegangen, schlafen (sleep) --> geschlafen, etc., or, in the case of splittable verbs, before the root: einkaufen (shop) --> eingekauft. Code-switchers bring the ge- along: "Ich war ge-shopping". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.191.49 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

code switching in india[edit]

I'm quite sure that code-switching is most common not in the countries mentioned, but in India. Here in India in all the cities code-sitch between the state language and English. eg. Hinglish in Delhi, Benglish in Kolkata etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.239.132 (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Code switching is common throughout the world - certainly also in India, but unlikely that it is more so than elsewhere.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Salman Rushdie, somewhere in his writing, said that in what was then Bombay, where he grew up, they jokingly said they spoke "HUGME", a mixture of Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati, Malayalam, and English, sometimes with words from all 5 languages in the same sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.123.68.64 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Examples of code-switching[edit]

Until 2008 there were more than two dozen "Occurrences" of code-switching listed on this page, none of which cited sources. Many consisted of true but trivial assertions such as, "Code-switching occurs in the South-Asian heritage communities of Great Britain" and "In China, code-switching occurs very frequently". I September of that year, I replaced these occurrences with an example from a secondary source, a well-known text on bilingualism (Zentella 1997).

Code-switching is a very common phenomenon in most parts of the world. If examples, especially those that come from editors' own experiences and knowledge and do not cite third-party sources, are added they threaten to quickly become unwieldy and trivial. If better examples exist, it may be better to replace one of the current examples than to greatly expand this section. Cnilep (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to intuitions?[edit]

An editor at IP 108.18.235.98 recently added the observation that bilinguals have intuitions about grammaticality of code switching. The editor did not cite a source for this statement. One might well be found, but I wonder if the suggestion is necessary at all.

There has been, for many years, debate among linguists about the relative value of native speaker intuitions versus empirical data. This is a big debate (full disclosure: I tend to support the empirical-data camp, so I'm probably biased), but not one that is especially relevant to code switching as opposed to other areas of linguistic research. Cnilep (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hearing no defense of its inclusion or attempt to offer reliable sources, I have removed the observation. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Formatting[edit]

Formatting was changed with this edit and a subsequent one, adding smallcaps and color. I don't think smallcaps are a problem per se, and they may make the transcriptions more readable, though the intent of the WP:MOS is to establish site-wide consistency, and I'm not aware that such formatting is a norm. The MOS explicitly says that color alone should not be used for formatting, but these changes keep the previously used italics. (Color alone is used to highlight French forms typical of Joual, however.)

The edit also removed an {{as written}} template that I had placed around nonstandard dialect forms. Another editor recently standardized the text in a way that reduced its usefulness as an illustration.

I would appreciate other editors' opinions on formatting, including whether to make these changes consistent or to remove them. Comments on the use of 'as written' are also welcome. Cnilep (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see the motivation for adding color. The italics don't show up as italics at all, just as oblique versions of the text sans serif font (at least on Chrome with the default WP skin), making it hard to distinguish the emphasized words from the others. In the book "Discourse strategies" by JJ Gumperz, there are a few sections on code-switching. In those sections, italic fonts are used to emphasize words, but I don't see any use of small caps to designate speakers. MOS:SMALLCAPS recommends against using all caps if possible.
The MOS section on italics MOS:ITAL uses the xt template to show examples in color. Interestingly, the xt template Template:Xt also generates a a serif font for unemphasized text and a true italic font for emphasized text. While MOS:COLOR recommends against using color alone for accessibility, color and a font change seem OK. --Mark viking (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed the {as written} template for reasons of feasibility. The template did not work with tables and style included in it, so I would have had to use it 5 or 6 times to embrace the text outside formatting. I'm sorry, I may have simply been a bit lazy. It can be included again though. Also, I was not familiar with the bots this template aims to outweigh, and I just assumed the programmers might have improved their scripts since both the creation of the template and the creation of the bots.
I edited the article just so its content can be acquired quicker. Color and caps just present a clearly distinguishable change in style and
I used Smallcaps because it follows certain customs in the textual presentation of dialogues (e.g. plays, screenplays, some interviews, etc.), so that the speakers' names are more clearly distinguishable from what the speakers are saying. I think that smallcaps are not really used as an emphasis in this case. The dialogues read still the same as before, and there is no change in meaning (in my opinion). I personally thought (and think) it should be fine.
Originally, I intended to format the text sort-of like below. I thought that the dialogue should not be interrupted by Translations, to give the reader an impression how the dialogue in which code-switching takes place looks like. I tried putting the translations in a separate column. However, I had some troubles with tables and thought that the look might not be a huge improvement, as the lines were too much apart from each other (I still don't know how to reduce line-spacing, if that's possible at all). I also experimented a little with highlighting certain columns, or the whole dialogue, but that might be a bit too much.
English (code-switching) Translation

Lolita:

Oh, I could stay with Ana?

Marta:

— but you could ask papi and mami to see if you could come down.

Lolita:

OK.

Marta:

Ana, if I leave her here would you send her upstairs when you leave?

Zentella:

I’ll tell you exactly when I have to leave, at ten o’clock. Y son las nueve y cuarto. ("And it’s nine fifteen.")

Marta:

Lolita, te voy a dejar con Ana. ("I’m going to leave you with Ana.")
Thank you, Ana.
French-Tamil example:
French (code-switching) Translation

Selvamani:

Parce que n’importe quand quand j’enregistre ma voix ça l’aire d’un garçon. ([in French] "Because whenever I record my voice I sound like a guy.")
Alors, TSÉ, je me ferrai pas poigné ("So, you know, I’m not going to be had.")
[laughter]

Selvamani:

ennatā, ennatā, enna romba ciritā? ([in Tamil] "What, what, what's so funny?")
Alors, qu’est-ce que je disais? ([in French] "So, what was I saying?")
What do you think? -- Wesn (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with color, but I think red isn't a good one. It's too close to the color for dead links. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue of how to handle translations is an important one. This often comes up in the publishing of linguistic research, and from my experience I would divide the style of translations into three general patterns. When glossing word-by-word, the translation usually comes directly below the original, one line at a time. (For example, see this article in Language Documentation & Conservation.) This is sometimes done for discourse segments that are not glossed but rather freely translated, too (see this example in International Journal of Bilingualism). I think this is largely done for convenience and it can work fine when only translating part of the text, as in the Spanish/English text above, but it makes text less legible if translation is needed on most every line, as in the Hopi/Tewa example.
A second approach is to put the entire example in the original language, followed by a translation of the whole thing (e.g. this in Journal of Pragmatics). This is easier to read, but it can be hard to understand which translated bits match with which bits of the original, especially if you're not already familiar with both languages. Often line numbers are added, and sometimes it takes effort to get the key points on corresponding lines.
The third style I have in mind presents the translation in a column next to the original, like that suggested by Wesn above. This is relatively easy to read and understand. The problem is that it is more difficult to produce. I worry about how such text will reproduce on different browsers, for example. It's also harder to edit (but given the history of too many examples, that might not be the worst thing in the world).
If we do want to use color, we should heed the MOS. That means, for example, taking care to make the text more accessible to those with color blindness. Font face or style should also change in addition to color. We might want to use the {{xt}} family of templates, or maybe even develop new templates if we reach a consensus on styles.
Bottom line, I think, is that we should strive for consistency across articles. That includes following the MOS. It might also require a broader discussion encompassing WP:WikiProject Linguistics and WP:WikiProject Languages, and maybe others. Cnilep (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

tsé[edit]

Why is "tsé" indicated as non standard French, when it simply transcribes the perfectly normal, colloquial pronunciation of "tu sais"?94.36.70.195 (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Code-switching in politics[edit]

I understand somewhat why this wouldn't fit in this article since the term, when applied in a political context, strays from the strict linguistic definition. That said, it is still the same basic use of the term, just applied in a specific context. Monica Heller, who is cited in this article, has written about it extensively. The whole last paragraph of the lead section talks about alternate uses of the term from the standard linguistic definition, so I'm not sure why the political use wouldn't fit there. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As to why "the whole last paragraph" fits the standard linguistic definition, see #AAVE as "register shift", above. Publications in the fields of applied linguistics and sociolinguistics call the switch from African American English to Standard American English "code-switching". Use of the term in literary criticism is more tenuously connected to its use in linguistics, but scholarly publications are at least cited.
If Professor Heller or others make the case that politicians' shifts in stance are code-switching in this sense, then by all means cite those publications. I suspect, though, that a better fit is Stance (linguistics), which is currently a non-existent page cited from Appraisal (discourse analysis). See, for example, Lempert, Michael (2009). "On 'flip-flopping': branded stance taking in U.S. electoral politics". Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (2): 223–48.  Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

UC Berkeley Improvement[edit]

This page is being worked on by UC Berkeley students for a Sociolinguistics course project. We are going to be focusing on improving and including grammatical aspects in the page and the Grammar section in particular, as it lacks clear organization, explanation of dominant theories and models, and examples. We believe these additions are necessary for the integrity of the page and the benefit of its readers. EmmaKylie (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, UC Berkeley students. The pages Metaphorical code-switching and Situational code-switching could also benefit from additional attention. Cnilep (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I do appreciate the improvements and the considerable effort contributed by UC Berkeley students to the coverage of grammatical theories. However, those edits removed all mention of Joshi's "closed-class constraint" MacSwann's "constraint-free approach", and the critiques of specific constraints by Bokamba, Bhatt, and others. Maybe these could be rewritten, or at least recovered from the article history. The section as it is current edited makes it appear as though two theories, attributable to just three scholars, represent the entirety of formal linguistic approaches to code switching, and this is certainly not the case. Cnilep (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ling 150 Comments[edit]

This section is reserved for the comments and suggestions of Linguistics 150 students at UC Berkeley. Thanks! EmmaKylie (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  • The group has provided an extensive account of the grammatical background for code-switching. The improved page has clear structure as well as contents. The introduction of the page could be more concise, as currently several sentences are partially repetitive. In addition, I think the 'Social Motivations' section could elaborate more on how each analysis/model demonstrates specific social significance of code-switching. For example, why Spanish is used at home and during recess, while English is used in class (also, is diglossia a subtype of code-switching?).
The examples are very helpful in showcasing code-switching in practice, but I think two examples are demonstrative enough. The Grammar section, which seems to be this group's main focus, is a good addition/modification to the page. The amount of information is adequate and to-the-point. Though it seems to me that the 'free morpheme constraint' totally excludes the category of 'intra-word switching'. Also, to call certain specific usage of code-switching 'impossible' might be too arbitrary and prescriptive. I think we might never know whether some person does use an uncommon way of code-switching, given the variability of individual style. --Danleiseveny (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You all have done an excellent job on this page. The intro was very clear and easy to understand, but it was a bit long. Perhaps you can move some sentences to other sections. I'd also suggest putting your examples section directly after the intro, so that a non-linguistics person encountering the page/concept for the first time has a concrete illustration of how code-switching surfaces in speech before trying to understand its theoretical aspects. Also, can you simplify the last section ("Grammar")? I had a hard time understanding the Matrix Language-Frame model especially. Kdinatale (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • This page is super impressive! I really liked your introduction section-- it was really easy to follow and filled with a lot of details. The "Social motivations for code-switching" section I think is organized a little haphazardly. I would maybe relabel the title of the section to be "Motivations for code-switching" and then have more subsections such as social motivations and cognitive motivations. The Diglossia section is also a little bare and could benefit with more detail. In the Sankoff and Poplack's Model, you guys mention alternational code-switching-- what is that? I might have missed something, but when I did a search for that term, nothing showed up on the page. I imagine it could confuse others as well. Other than that, the page was great! There was lots of references and information. Good job!MildlyImpressed (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice page! I liked the writing throughout the page. I felt it was clear and concise and exemplified the kind of writing Wikipedia pages typically have. In the second paragraph of the intro, I'm not sure you need to go into that much detail comparing code-switching to other language-contact phenomena. You guys already have them hyperlinked and the extra descriptions clutter the intro. In the Social Motivations section, the last subsection seems a bit general, compared to the other subsections. You state "some topics and situations are better suited to the use of one language over another." It just seems that this is true for any social motivation. The Types section is clear and to the point! I would just say you might want to move the Types section somewhere else because it doesn't quite seem to belong under Grammar and so the flow was confusing. I like that there are many examples! Maybe you could move Types before Examples, and then state which type of code-switching is exemplified. Overall, very thorough page! Yaylinguistics (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You've made a good start in reorganizing the Grammar section, and adding some content. Here are some specific suggestions for areas of improvement:
    • The 'Grammar' section as a whole would benefit considerably from examples. I suggest minimally exemplifying each of the 'types' (with citations to sources).
    • A section title more informative than 'Grammar' might be called for (e.g. Grammatical dimensions of Code-switching)
    • I think it would be helpful to more clearly distinguish, in the layout of the grammar section, the Types of Codeswitching (note, not just 'Types') and 'Grammatical theories of code-switching'.
    • In your discussion of the Equivalence Constraint, I think you need to clarify what it means that an utterance obeys the syntactic rules of two languages. An instance of 'ungrammatical' codeswitching might be very helpful in making your point.
    • Under the 'Weaknesses' section for the S&P model, it is not clear why the Hindi postpositional phrase is ruled out by the Equivalence principle. It would be good to clarify this.
    • The Functional Head Constraint is buried in 'Weaknesses' when it is an entirely distinct theoretical proposal. Shouldn't it get it's own section in some form?
    • The MLF model is very important, but I think the MLF section needs quite a bit of work to meet Wikipedia norms.
      • It would be helpful to give readers a sense of the overall structure of the model, rather than just giving a laundry list of 'hypotheses' e.g. how does formulator, introduced in the first bullet point, relate to other elements in the model?
      • Why is codeswitching defined again at the beginning of this section?
      • as Cnilep suggests, the use of abbreviations is rather forbidding.
      • "grammatical procedures in the formulator ... which account for the surface structure of the ML + EL constituents are only ML-based procedures" What does this mean?
      • The discussion of the Blocking Hypothesis is very difficult to understand for the non-specialist (i.e. the intended Wikipedia reader). What is subcategorization? What are the three levels of abstraction? What are the relevant qualities in question?
      • What is an 'EL Island'? What is an 'ML accessing procedure'?
      • Exemplification would be helpful make clear what the import of the various hypotheses is.Ldmanthroling (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well done page! I think you cleaned up the original page in a thoughtful way. The writing is more consistently academic and the organization makes a lot more sense. I wonder thought why you decided to keep the huge chunk of text above the table of contents instead of breaking it up. The first paragraph is a nice, concise definition of code-switching, but the next couple paragraph goes into a lot of detail that might warrant an additional section, if only to emphasize the information there, like distinguishing it from language contact and the non-linguistics role of code-switching. The Social Motivations section is really clear and I think the Examples section is really valuable (so if you wrote it, good job, and if you kept it, good thinking). I'm sure you noticed the tag on the Matrix language-frame model section, so keep that in mind. I would also recommend making the Grammar section more unified in its organization. With all the bold phrases, bullet points and subheads, it looks less clean and professional than the rest of the page. Frannieu12 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice reorganization of the page and great job on the improvements in the grammar section! My first impression of the introduction is that it's clear and easy to read, but it's really long. Is there any reason you kept it like that? I'm sure some of the information there can be moved into a section of its own. As for the grammar section, it would be helpful if you showed correct and incorrect examples for each of the constraints. It would also be helpful if you parsed out the Functional Head Constraint from the weaknesses section and gave it a separate explanation and set of examples for it too. Jtnh (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Great page with lots of information! I like the models accounting for the motivation behind code-switching. They are of good length and very eye opening. Here is some advice: I think the intro is a little long. The first and second paragraphs give readers a general idea of what it is--I think that would be sufficient for an intro. Also, in the second paragraph, where you mentioned the distinction among code-switching and other language contact phenomena, you specifically picked borrowing and code-mixing, even though you provided hyperlinks to the potentially confusing types right before that. Given the information you have already provided, i think we can keep it short in the beginning, and if you want, you can add a separate section distinguishing some terms later. (Because you mentioned the distinction between code switching and borrowing later in the free morpheme constraint as well). I think it would be nice to make the structure more clear in that way. Other than that, great job! I learned a lot from reading it :) thanks! --Crfrances (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A very straight-forward page with lots of examples clearly explained. The organization is also quite nice. I feel like I can understand this topic much better now that I've read this pageGvargasLing150 (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job on fixing this page! I loved the introduction section. I thought the writing style was very consistent and understandable. I liked the grammar section. It was to-the-point, descriptive, and well-organized. AnnaCG93 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job on improving the page. Writing is quite clear. While reading the page for the first time, one thing that struck me as odd was the organization, more specifically that the Grammar section follows the Examples section. And, as I think others have mentioned, including examples in the Matrix language-frame model section might be an effective way of offsetting the technical nature of the material discussed. M.karie (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is just a formatting preference, but for the "Sankoff and Poplack's model" section, I personally would just describe the two constraints in a numbered list rather than having subsections for both (since the constraint descriptions are relatively brief). The "Matrix language-frame model" section was a bit hard to follow because of all the technical terms ("EL Island", etc.); it could benefit from further explanation of the terms and hypotheses. You could add more examples to illustrate the models discussed in the "Grammar" section. You did a great job with the present examples! As for the introduction section, I agree that it is a bit long. The content in the second and fourth paragraphs could potentially be moved to a "Definition" (or some other aptly named) section. Drbazzi (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Great job on the page! I think that it is well written and clear! I only have two critiques, both of which are pretty minimal. First, I think that the introduction is a bit long. I think the first paragraph was fine, but the next two or three paragraphs could have gone under a heading called 'history' or something like that. Second, I think the organization of the page is a bit strange. For example, I think that the Grammar section could go before the examples that you listed of code-swtiching. Otherwise, great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarisaRussell (talkcontribs) 20:59, 7 November 2013

First, thank you for the page! Second, upon beginning to read the page, the intro was a bit overwhelming. Perhaps the distinctions discussion can be placed in a separate section? An aside, also, I felt this sentence was a little confusing in the context of the paragraph: “Speaker form and establish a pidgin language when two or more speakers who do not speak a common language form an intermediate, third language.” Perhaps some effective transitions can be included, or simply, start each sentence like you did with “Borrowing affects the lexicon.... Pidgins.... Creoles.... Calques...” and so on. Also, “formal linguistic properties (of language contact phenomena)” might be confusing for the average Wikipedia reader without some brief explanation for what that refers to. The two sentences between the third and fourth paragraphs of the intro also seem a bit out of place. In your Social Motivations section, I was curious as to how sociolinguists contest that language-choice in not entirely rational. I was wondering if that was in the literature your group came across. Also in this section, I was a little confused about the Sequential Analysis portion, specifically “brought-along” versus “brought-about”. I enjoyed the examples also, and I was wondering if in the studies, the researchers provided some explanations for the motivations for those code-switches. I, as a reader, would be interested in learning about the applications of those motivations in real data. Lastly, on the section about the Matrix Language Frame Model, I agree that it reads rather technical and could use some elucidations. Thank you again. User: Cueva:anana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cueva:anana (talkcontribs) 14:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice page. The writing was pretty straightforward, but the page could use some reorganization. The introduction is a bit long, so perhaps you could create a new section for the latter half. I think the Examples section should be at the end, and maybe even move the Grammar section before Social motivations. The Matrix language frame model seemed out of place and interrupts the flow of the page a little. Maybe try and find a better way to explain it? Otherwise, good job! Elizalinguistics (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Really great page! I think the content of the intro is pretty good, but as others have said, a little intimidating. I think it could stand to have bits of it moved elsewhere in the page. I really liked the examples you included, although I agree that they could be put at the bottom and it would make the organization of the page more cohesive. I'm not too fond of the Weaknesses section; I think reformatting or restructuring the explanation could help. I agree with others about the Matrix Language Frame Model section, about it being too technical. I think it's a valuable addition, so perhaps simplifying it a bit would make it more readable. Catclawnym (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Great page! To start off with, I think you should have only a sentence or two as the intro and create a section underneath the table of contents for further information on the principle. As stated above, the organization is a little bit unclear. I think it would be beneficial to have the examples at the end and to have some more examples in the Matrix section since it is a little technical. Otherwise, the writing is clear and it looks good! Artichoke666 —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The page is well-organized and I am impressed by your ability to tackle a pretty difficult topic to pin down! The first section could use a little clarification, though. Maybe give an example right off the bat? Code-switching seems to me to be one of those phenomena that is difficult to grasp without experiencing it. The page is good though and the Lolita examples are as well. The only thing that I would say is that you perhaps want to impress more upon the fact that code-switching necessitates bilingual or multilingualism. Perhaps I am misinformed, but from my personal knowledge, I believe that to be true. Efgoodrich (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Great page and very extensive.

  • I would suggest to move some of the content from the intro to the other sections as it is quite long for a summarized introduction to the topic.
  • in the "French and Tamil"-section Sonja Das is linked but there´s no existing page
  • And I found some typing mistakes: In the French and Tamil section: ("So, you know, I’m not going to be had.") and Implicational Hierarchy Hypothesis: This hypothesis can be states as two sub-hypotheses.

Sahara2005 (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The latter half of the introduction can be branched into two new subsections: History, and In Academia, respectively. Other than that, the grammar of code-switching is extensively detailed and serves as a pleasant introduction to a field that is otherwise difficult to approach! Warrenmcbieber (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Code-Switching team, I'm a little late to the party here, but let me congratulate you on an excellent page. It's great, and I like how responsive you were to breaking down the grammar parts of the page. I'd reccommend that you remove the colon blocked of restatements of a theory's name, as you've already given a subsection to each. In addition,please hyperlink or briefly define what an embedded construction or various other linguistic terminology you use means, because we understand it, but non-linguists may not. Also, hyperlinking makes it easier for skimmers to just click, rather than starta new search. Also, your examples in the grammar section for the equivalence constraint explain code switching better than the examples above. If you could add a few more to explain the more abstract ML stuff, that would be excellent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzajaka (talkcontribs) 05:44, 13 November 2013‎

This page has a lot of good information on it. I find the "matrix language-frame model" section a bit confusing and without hyperlinks to help understand the background of the topic, people with little knowledge of linguistics will find it difficult to understand. I also think that the introduction is a bit long and maybe could be condensed or put into it's own section. Sydneyelder (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

CMS UA[edit]

I know that Carol Myers-Scotton uses a lot of initialisms such as CS for "code switching" and ML for "matrix language", and I know that some of the scholars follow her in this usage. It is, however, confusing for non-experts to encounter text dense with such abbreviations. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations urges consistency throughout an article. The style guide also suggests, "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion". I would recommend spelling out most, if not all of the labels from Myers-Scotton's work, even where she does not. (Oh, and just in case the heading of this section is unclear, it refers to "Carol Myers-Scotton's use of abbreviations".) Cnilep (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)