International Journal of Social Science and Education Research Studies

ISSN(print): 2770-2782, ISSN(online): 2770-2790

Volume 03 Issue 04 April 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55677/ijssers/V03I4Y2023-05, Impact Factor: 5.574
Page No : 568-577

Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A

Theoretical Account
Aziz Driouch
Ibn Zohr University, Agadir- Morocco

ABSTRACT Published Online: April 06, 2023

Research on code-switching (CS) has witnessed a major terminological issue, especially with regard
to its relation to other concepts of language contact phenomena. CS, as a research area, is troubled with
the question of terminological confusion. Sometimes, researchers use different labels to indicate the
same notion; in others, they use the same term to refer to distinct notions. Hence, there is no definite Keywords:
consensus on the territory covered by the terms related to the CS phenomenon such as CM, borrowing, Language contact,
transfer and so on. This article attempts to explore and clarify these terms and examine their similarity code-switching,
or distinction to CS. The latter is reviewed in comparison to four close and interrelated linguistic borrowing, diglossia,
phenomena, namely code-mixing, diglossia, borrowing, and interference. This review is based on interference.
reviewing the literature and reflecting on it.

1. INTRODUCTION countries makes of the field of bi-multilingualism a richer and

Bi-/Multilingualism can be considered as a normal linguistic more interesting ground for linguistic studies. More than that,
situation where two or more languages are in contact. This recent studies have shown that bi-/multilingualism is healthy
field is an interdisciplinary and complex area of study, and it as it “brings opportunities not only to the individual but also
generally concerns itself with the study of the interaction and to the society as a whole” (Li, Dewaele, & Housen, 2002, p.
use of two or more languages in terms of speech production, 3).
language processing, and comprehension. A number of A number of linguistic behaviors have come out of bi-
scholars have been interested and studied bi-/multilingualism /multilingual situations such as code-switching, code-mixing,
from different perspectives. The pioneering phase of bi- borrowing, diglossia, and interference. CS has been
th celebrated most in literature. It can be said that CS has been
/multilingualism started in the late half of the 20 century
the central issue among other language contact phenomena in
with the works of Weinreich (1953), Haugen (1953), and
the literature on bi-/multilingual research. Milroy and
Mackey (1967). Research on bi-/multilingualism has recently
Muysken (1995:7) state that CS is probably the „central
become a norm, especially that the majority of the world
issue‟ in bi-/multilingualism. This is confirmed by Riehl
countries are bi-/multilingual.
(2005) who advocates that most of the research done on
According to the statistics with regard to the world’s
1 bilingualism centers around the phenomenon of CS. In the
languages, there are 7,388 living languages comparing it to same vein, Bullock and Toribio (2009) stated that “of all of
the number of countries in the word, which are approximately the contact phenomena of interest to researchers and students
one hundred and ninety-five (195) sovereign states, according of bilingualism, code-switching has arguably dominated the
to the U.N. Here, we can deduce that there are more languages field” (p. 1).
than countries. Therefore, bi-/multilingualism is and will be In comparison with other language-contact phenomena, some
widely spread. This fact that there are more languages than linguists consider CS as a subfield of bilingualism (e.g.

Corresponding Author: Aziz Driouch

1
https://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/ [Date:
*Cite this Article: Aziz Driouch (2023). Code-Switching in
Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A
22/3/2023].
Theoretical Account. International Journal of Social Science
and Education Research Studies, 3(4), 568-577

568 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org

Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
Dabane, 1995, p. 125). In this regard, Gardner-Chloros (1995, (Beebe & Giles, 1984, p. 7). From this basis, Giles sees that
p. 68) argues that CS is such a “broad blanket term” for a the accommodation theory is highly applicable to account for
number of intra-lingual phenomena. In the same vein, Milroy the social motivations of CS.
and Muysken (1995, p. 7) state that CS is the focal point of As far as Wardhaugh (2010) is concerned, he sees that CS
research on bilingualism; they depict it as a cover term that “can occur in conversation between speakers‟ turns or within
subsumes different forms of bilingual linguistic behavior. a single speaker‟s turn. In the latter case it can occur between
Therefore, a definition of CS is required to get more insights sentences (inter-sententially) or within a single sentence
into its nature and position in bi-/multilingual studies. Then, (intra-sententially)” (p. 98). In the same line, Muysken (2000)
an exploration of CS and its relationship with other language- also sees that it is noteworthy to distinguish between these
contact phenomena is proceeded. two different types of CS, namely inter-sentential and intra-
sentential CS. For Muysken, the intra- sentential CS is
II. DEFINITION OF CODE-SWITCHING referred to as code-mixing. Annamalai (1989) advocates that
Numerous attempts have been made to come up with a CS takes place during a unit of discourse, but CM “is not
comprehensive and precise definition of CS, but this task has normally done with full sentences from another language with
proven to be intricately difficult. There is no definite its grammar” (p. 48). According to Bentahila and Davis
definition of the phenomenon of CS; rather there are several (1983), CS “is the use of two languages within a single
definitions that tap on different facets of CS phenomenon. conversation, exchange or utterance”; they argue that the “act
Poplack (1995) defines CS as the “juxtaposition of sentences of choosing one code rather than another must be
or sentence fragments, each of which is internally consistent distinguished from the act of mixing the two codes together
with the morphological and syntactic (and optionally to produce something which might itself be called a third
phonological) rules of its lexifier language” (p. 200). code” (p. 302).
According to Myers-Scotton (1993, p. 4), CS is defined as the Based on what is aforementioned, one can conclude that CS
“selection of bilinguals or multilinguals of forms from an is a language phenomenon that is natural in bi-/multilingual
embedded language (or languages) in utterances of a matrix contexts. It is the outcome of a situation in which two, or
language during the same conversation”. Hence, for Myers- more, language varieties are in contact and used alternately
Scotton, CS involves a matrix or dominant language and an back and forth in a given speech or utterance. This alternation
embedded one. Furthermore, she emphasizes on the aspect of between language varieties can take place at the level of a
proficiency in both languages. She states that CS is a “type of discourse, turn, utterance, constituent or a marker. Moreover,
skilled performance with communicative intent” (1995, p. 7). CS can be studied mainly from two perspectives, a linguistic
In the same vein, Rasekh et al (2008, p. 552) argue that CS perspective and a social one. The former tries to identify the
takes place when competent bilingual interlocutors share linguistic principles and structural constraints that govern the
knowledge of the two languages well enough to distinguish production of code-switched utterances while the latter deals
terms from either language at any moment during the with the social motivations and functions that lead to the
interaction (Gimode, 2015, p. 23). output of CS. Therefore, CS is a cover term that may
According to Fishman (1999, p. 147), CS is defined as the encompass other linguistic phenomena of language contact
“alternate use of two or more languages in the same utterance such as come mixing. In what follows, we will discover CS
of conversation”. Before that, Gumperz (1982, p. 59) in its relation to other language contact phenomena.
describes CS as a conversational act. He defines CS as the
“juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages III. CODE-SWITCHING AND OTHER LANGUAGE
of speech belonging to different grammatical systems or sub- CONTACT PHENOMENA
systems”. This concept of conversational CS overlaps with A. Code-switching versus code-mixing
other definitions commonly used to refer to CS, but Gumperz CS and CM have been treated differently by researchers.
deals with CS more as a product of social settings or situations Some of the latter use them interchangeably while others
that guide the language use. Auer (1995) agrees with insist on making a distinction between the terms. According
Gumperz (1981) that CS is socially driven, and he suggests to Bokamba (1989):
the notion of contextualization as a model to account for Code switching is the mixing of words, phrases and
conversational CS. In the same line, Giles (1984) also sentences from distinct grammatical (sub)systems across
contributes to the understanding of social meaning of CS sentence boundaries within the same speech event…code
through his theoretical framework of speech accommodation mixing is the embedding of various linguistic units such as
theory, later dubbed as communication accommodation affixes (bound morphemes), words (unbound morphemes),
theory. For Giles’ theory, during the social interaction, phrases and clauses from cooperative activity where the
interlocutors “are motivated to adjust (or accommodate) their participants, in order to infer what is intended, must
speech styles as a means of evoking listeners‟ social reconcile what they hear with what they understand (p. 278).
approval, attaining communicational efficiency between
interactants, and maintaining positive social identities”

569 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org

Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
distinguishes between the terms on the basis of function or
In the same line, Tay (1989) distinguishes between the two motivation. He argues that CS takes place from a ‘standard’
linguistic phenomena. The difference, for Tay, resides in that variety to a dialect one; it serves the function of showing
CS is carried out across the sentence boundaries, while CM is solidarity or disapproval and so on. Conversely, CM takes
conducted within the same sentence and the same speech place informally, and it often involves the exchange between
situation. Gardners-Claros (2009) agrees that the distinction a local variety and a more socially accepted and prestigious
between CS and CM is based on the “spot” at which the one, like English in order to show the ability to use that
switch takes place. For her, CS takes place intersententially prestigious variety as a form of education. He argues that CM
when “a bilingual speaker uses more than one language in a involves the transference of linguistic units from a language
single utterance above the clause to appropriately convey to another, which may result in a new code of interaction,
his/her intents” (p. 68). On the other hand, CM is an intra- such as Westernized Hindi.
sentential alternation which involves more than one language
used “below the clause level within one social situation” For Mazraani (1997, pp. 8-9), the difference between CM and
(Gardners-Claros, 2009, p. 69). Thus, CS occurs between CS is that the latter has a discourse function; she states that
utterances while CM takes place within an utterance. In the CS is a phenomenon in which “sections in one code are
same vein, Mashiri (2002) differentiates between CS and CM followed by sections in another in the same conversation”. On
in the sense that in the former, the languages involved in the the other hand, CM involves “the mixing of different varieties
switching keep their morphological and phonological within a single utterance”. For her, CM does not affect all
attributes while in the latter (CM), the embedded language linguistic levels such as syntax and phonology. Likewise,
items occur in the matrix language sentence, obeying the Ugot (2010) sees that CS and CM are generally expected
placement rules of that matrix language. because they respond to communicative needs and call for
adaptability of languages to respond to these needs in social
In distinguishing CS and CM, Wardhaugh (1986) sees that interaction. For him, CS involves “the lifting of phrasal,
CM is conducted when the participants use and exchange clausal or sentential structures” (p. 29). Thus, syntactically,
both languages in the course of a single utterance. For him, CS happens when diverse utterances from distinct languages
CM taps on various linguistic levels such as lexical items and establish one discourse, whereas CM marks the infusion of
morphology, without changing of the topic. The same was single items from the donor language into the first language
argued by Annamalia (1989) who proclaims that the or mother tongue (L1) construction (Ugot, 2010).
difference between CS and CM lies not only on grammatical
aspects of the exchanges because no new grammar is created
beyond the grammars of the languages involved in the According to Muysken (2000, p. 109), the term CM can be
switching sites. According to him, in CM, there is no variation used to refer to all cases when items of a language are used
in topic and participants, and all of the latter share knowledge while the speaker(s) use another. In his book “Bilingual
of both languages. He also argued that CM is a linguistic or Speech: A Typology of Code Mixing”, Muysken (2000) sees
discourse strategy that necessitates a kind of language that CS can be equated with one of three proposed types of
competence of the speakers. The same was argued by Moradi CM, namely alternation. For him, CS is not an inclusive and
(2014) who advocates that CM involves the alternation of two appropriate term as it separates other language contact
languages within a sentence. This language alternation is phenomena such as borrowing. Hence, he avoids using CS;
fluent, rapid, and unhesitant; it reflects the output of a instead he prefers to use CM as a neutral term. He advocates
bilingual who is competent in both languages; therefore, CM that CM can refer to “all cases where lexical items and
shows the ability of the speaker to use elements of each grammatical features from two languages appear in one
language involved alternately within a sentence. As far as sentence” (Muysken, 2000, p. 1). However, in their work
Sridhar and Sridhar (1980) are concerned, CM can be later, Rene and Muysken (2005) admit that there is a
distinguished from CS in two ways; the first is that CM is not distinction between CS and CM and that the latter can be
accompanied by a shift or change in the speech situation, and counted as an intra-sentential form of CS; this latter is seen as
the second is that it takes place at the intra-sentential level. an overall process of alternation of codes (cited in Gimode,
Tay (1989) agrees with Sridhar and Sridhar in the sense that 2015, p. 24).
CM takes place intra-sententially within the same speech
event or situation while CS occurs across sentence On the other hand, Myers-Scotton (1993) does not see a
boundaries. necessity in trying to distinguish between CS and CM
because this distinction creates an “unnecessary confusion”.
Another perspective of distinguishing CS and CM is regarded She states that:
with formality of the situation. It is generally argued that CM
is conducted in less formal situations, whereas CS likely A number of researchers associated with Braj Kachru[...], but
occurs in more formal ones. In this regard, Kachru (1978) also some others, prefer to label as 'code-mixing' alternations

570 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org

Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
which are intrasentential, although it is not entirely clear morphosyntactic and phonological form as well as
whether this applies to all intrasentential CS (code- grammatical patterns when they are used, whereas
switching). While I grant that intrasentential CS puts different borrowings require morphological and syntactic as well as
psycholinguistic 'stresses' on the language-production system phonological adaptations of the grammar of the recipient
from intersentential (code switching) CS (a valid reason to language (Poplack and Meechan, 1998, p. 132). As far as
differentiate the two), the two types of CS may have similar Halmari (1997, p. 173) is concerned, phonological
socio-psychological motivations. For this reason, I prefer assimilation can be seen as the main, if not the only,
'CS' as a cover term; the two types can be differentiated by determining feature of borrowing.
the labels 'intersentential' and 'intrasentential' when structural
constraints are considered. (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 1) Determining borrowing from CS based on morphosyntactic
and phonological adaptation is not freed from criticisms.
All in all, one can conclude that considering CS and CM as According to Myers-Scotton (1992), “while most established
different language processes or phenomena is needless and forms may be well phonologically integrated to ML by no
nonessential because CM can be considered as part of CS. means do all borrowed forms show such integration” (p. 31).
The definitions of the terms by different researchers render In this regard, Romaine (1995, p. 601) uses the example of
CS as a more inclusive term which covers also CM. chips that has become a borrowing in Punjabi, and it has not
Therefore, CS indicates both intra-sentential and inter- undergone any morphological or phonological assimilation.
sentential switching of codes along with between longer The same point was raised by Pickeles (1999) who argues that
stretches of texts, but it does not include borrowing to refer to there is a cross-linguistic influence in the way /r/ is
foreign words that have been integrated into the system of pronounced by Maghribi students in France, which is not case
another language. In what follows, the term borrowing is of borrowing; otherwise, every French lexical item which
further discussed and its relation to CS. contains the sound /r/ would be deemed as borrowing (cited
in Aabi, 1999). Meanwhile, not all morpho-syntactically
B. Code-switching versus borrowing integrated lexical items are borrowed forms. For instance, the
The notion of borrowing and its relation to CS has generated syntax of expressions like bon appétit remains intact when
an intense debate and resulted into controversial standpoints. borrowed from French to English. Bentahila and Davis (1991,
This controversy has risen to whether CS and borrowing p. 384) raised some instances of morpho-syntactically
should be treated as different or the same entities. This integrated French words into MA system, but they fall within
problem can be linked to what Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog CS phenomena. For example, “Taymshiw l-la toilette bash y-
(1968) call the transition problem: since languages change pissi-w’’. Here, even if the word pisser is adapted to MA
diachronically, we cannot locate at what particular point a morphological system; still it is not considered as borrowing.
lexical item becomes borrowing or loanword in the recipient Hence, this three-fold criteria reported by Poplack and others
language. However, a number of researchers have attempted is very significant, but not enough for setting a clear-cut
to put certain criteria that would help in distinguishing the two boundary between CS and borrowing.
terms.
As pointed out above, the mophosyntactic and phonological
A group of researchers associated with Poplack (1981, 1987, integration seem to be very essential for distinguishing
& 1990)2 argue that CS and borrowing are two different borrowing from CS; however, other factors may come into
mechanisms. They propose three types of criteria to play in this regard. Myers-Scotton (1992 & 1993) argues that
determine whether a lexical item or foreign word can be a categorical distinction between borrowing and CS is not
classified as borrowing or CS. These criteria are necessary, but then she sees that frequency can be the best
morphological integration, syntactic integration, and single criterion to associate borrowed forms to the recipient
phonological integration. According to them, a lexical item language (cited in Boztepe, E., 2005). Therefore, frequency
cannot be counted as borrowing unless it is morpho- is another essential factor for making distinction between
syntactically and phonologically integrated into the recipient borrowing and CS. Borrowed forms are used more frequently
language. According to this approach, if the integration of a in the community and, thus, become established in the host
lexical item taps only one or two of its criteria (morphology, language, while CS is considered as a momentary use of
syntax and phonology), that lexical item is considered as an language by a bilingual speaker. Hence, CS is typically an
instance of CS, not borrowing. Therefore, for Poplack and idiosyncratic alteration of languages by bilinguals.
Meechan (1998), CS does not require any morphological or Conversely, borrowing is more established forms in the host
syntactic integration, code-switched items still keep their language that can be used not only by bilinguals but also

2 i.e. Poplack, Wheeler, and Westwood purposes, these authors will be referred
(1987), Sankoff and Poplack (1981), and to as “Poplack and her associates.”
Sankoff, Poplack, and
Vanniarajan (1990). For abbreviation
571 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org
Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
monolinguals of the recipient language. Besides, Myers- borrowed form. For them, nonce borrowing is simply
Scotton (2002) sees that the distinction between the two terms equivalent to CS; it is just extraneous and does not add
should not be the key and critical concern in analyzing any explanatory value to the study of language contact
bilingual speech, and she states that the sole sense in which a phenomena.
difference is to be made between them is regarded to their
status in the mental lexicon: “Lemmas underlying code As a conclusion, the distinction between CS and borrowing is
switching forms are only tagged for the embedded language, not straightforward and easy. However, one can deduce that
while borrowing forms have lemmas for both the donor and borrowed items refer to elements taken from a language and
the recipient language” (Myers-Scotton, 2002, p. 153). have been morpho-syntactically and phonologically
integrated into a host language. These elements can be used
Unlike Bentahila and Davis (1983), Sridhar and Sridhar by both bilinguals and monolinguals of the host language. On
(1980) and others who consider CS and borrowing as distinct the contrary, CS refers to the incorporation of foreign
phenomena, Myers-Scotton (1992, 1993) and Matras (2009) language elements in a base language without necessarily
see that the concepts as a universally related processes and being morpho-syntactically and phonologically adapted to the
part of a single continuum. Myers-Scotton also disagrees with host language system, so code-switched items are not
the researchers mentioned above who claim that the main conditioned by the grammar of the recipient language. While
characteristics of borrowed forms is to fill lexical gaps in the the validity of morphosyntactic and phonological integration
recipient language. For her, not all borrowings take place criteria has been argued among researchers, still these criteria
owing to the gap or absence of an equivalent term in the are crucial for distinguishing the two concepts, yet they are
recipient language. This was supported by Haugen (1953) not always sufficient. Therefore, other criteria may be evoked
who stated that “borrowing always goes beyond the actual for this distinction such as the language use, especially in
‘needs’ of language” (p. 373). Consequently, Myers-Scotton terms of frequency and speech community acceptance of the
(1993) came up with the idea of distinguishing between core loanwords. Other researchers such as Myers-Scotton (1993)
borrowings and cultural borrowings. Core borrowings are and Heath (2001) see that it is not necessary to search for any
those lexical items which have their “viable” counterparts in differences between CS and borrowing as they are related
the recipient language. Cultural borrowings, on the other phenomena and part of the same “developmental continuum”.
hand, refer to the lexical items which are new and unfamiliar Moreover, this distinction is not crucial for the study of
to the recipient language. Another classification of bilingual speech. In this regard, Saib (1989, p. 48) states “En
borrowings worth discussing is nonce versus established effet MC (mélange de codes), dans le contexte marocain, a
borrowings. trait ä un continuum allant de 1'emprunat PC (permutation de
codes)” (Aabi, 1999, p. 10). This continuum process is not
According to Poplack & Sankoff (1984), there are two only notable in the alternation between Arabic and French,
types of borrowings: established loanwords and nonce but also between Amazigh and Arabic and between the
borrowing. The former refers to lexical items which are Arabic varieties, e.g. MA and SA; this kind of switching is
fully integrated and frequently used; they have become called diglossic switching. The following point discusses CS
part of the recipient language. Grosjean (1982) defines in relation to diglossia.
them as elements from a donor language which are
“integrated phonologically and morphologically into the C. Code-switching versus diglossia
base language” (p. 127). On the other hand, none CS and diglossia seem to account for different phenomena of
borrowing refer to the use of lexical items of a language language contact. However, there are some common meeting
which have not yet integrated and become an established points of the concepts. The term diglossia is more attached to
part of the host language. This concept was first Ferguson even if the term diglossie was used before Ferguson
introduced by Haugen (1950) and, then, has been taken by the French linguist Marcais (Fasold, 1984, p. 34).
up by Poplack and Sankoff (1984) and Poplack and According to Ferguson, diglossia is defined as:
Meechan (1995). For Muysken (1995, p. 190), nonce
borrowings are items which are “borrowed on the spur of …a relatively stable language situation in which, in
the moment”, without receiving any status in the host addition to the primary dialects of the language
language yet. Riehl (2005, p. 1947) sees that nonce (which may include a standard or regional standards),
borrowing can be equated with idiosyncratic loans. Some there is a very divergent, highly codified (often
researchers such as Bentahila and Davis (1991), grammatically more complex) superposed variety,
Bokamba (1988), and Myers-Scotton (1993) disagree the vehicle of a large and respected body of written
with the notion of nonce borrowing. They generally literature, either of an earlier period or in another
argue that any lexical item used from a language and it is speech community, which is learned largely by
not yet “established” and integrated in the system of the formal education and is used for most written and
host language should be treated as a CS element, not a formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector

572 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org

Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
of the community for ordinary conversation. latter involves the role of participants and features of the
(Ferguson 1972 [1959], p. 345) scene (Gimode, 2015, p. 27).

Based on the definition above, one can deduce that diglossia A clear manifestation of diglossia is the Arab world.
involves two varieties of a language; a ‘high’ variety and a According to Ferguson (1959), Arabic represents a good
‘low’ one. The former refers to the standard form of the example of diglossic situation because of the co-existence of
language in question. This standard variety is typically the a standard literary variety called “al-luɣa al-fusћa” and the
official language which is learnt in formal education; then, it colloquial variety named “al-luɣa al-ʕammija”. For Fishman
is limited to formal contexts by the educated elites; whereas (1985, p. 40), the linguistic situation of Arabic language
the colloquial form of the language (‘low’ variety) is mostly reflects a case of classic diglossia where two varieties of the
used in informal domains for everyday conversations by same “genetically related” language are used in different
ordinary people. Ferguson (1972) asserted that it is essential contexts. However, the diglossic situation of Arabic is more
to treat the two varieties in diglossic situation as differently complex than the simple high-low dichotomy (Ennaji, 2002;
allotted functions within the speech community (Fasold, Kaye, 2002). Therefore, Fishman (1972) suggested an
1995, p. 35). The gist here is that there is a strict distinction extended version of diglossia. The latter covers any linguistic
of the domains of language use in diglossic situation. situation in which two different language systems are used
side by side. Hence, it is not limited to the varieties of the
Ferguson’s definition has not been welcomed without same language. For him, the language use domains are what
criticisms. A number of questions are raised as a reaction to governs the linguistic choice of the participants as “proper
Ferguson’s definition such as how close together and how far usage dictates that only one of the theoretically co-available
apart should the ‘low’ and ‘high’ varieties be for a language languages or varieties will be chosen by particular classes of
situation to be called “diglossia”. This question was raised by interlocutors on particular kinds of occasions to discuss
Fasold (1995, p. 50) who sees that there are no “absolute particular topics” (Fishman, 1972, p. 244).
measures” to specify the distance between the ‘high’ and the
‘low’ varieties in a diglossic community. Another question One could argue that CS and diglossia seem to express
one may pose in this regard is: Can we talk about only one different language contact phenomena in the sense that
‘high’ or ‘low’ variety in a speech community? Ferguson diglossia reflects one-to-one relationship while CS binds the
disregarded that there may exist more than one ‘high’ or ‘low’ utterance or the conversation together. In other words,
variety of a language in a given speech community. For diglossia employs two different codes in different contexts
example, in Arabic countries, where diglossia shines fully, separately, whereas CS involves the alternate use of two
there are CA and MSA. Both are used as high varieties in languages or varieties within the same speech exchange.
formal contexts. More than that, another variety emerged in However, both linguistic phenomena share the fact that
between SA and colloquial form of Arabic; it is named as participants should use two codes. Besides, diglossia can be
Middle Arabic or Educated Spoken Arabic. The question here studied within the framework of CS as the latter can take
is where can we position this “Middle Arabic” in a diglossic place not only between distinct languages but also between
situation? different varieties of the same language (Bassiouney, 2009, p.
31). In this regard, Mejdell (2006) argues that CS “should be
The classic example of diglossia in bilingual studies is the understood in a broad context to encompass both varieties and
case of Hemnesberget speech community in Norway, which different languages” (cited in Bassiouney, 2009). Hence,
was the basis of the pioneering study on CS by Blom and diglossia can, sometimes, be considered as a form of CS. This
Gumperz (1972). According to the two linguists, form can be called diglossic switching. The latter refers to the
Hemnesberget speech community is characterized by the use alternate use of a high (standard variety) and low (its
of two different linguistic varieties in different situations or colloquial form) variety of the same language within the same
contexts. The low variety is Ranamal, a local variety, which speech event or conversation, not necessarily in two different
is basically used in everyday interactions and in ‘low’ social contexts or situations. Here exists a knot between CS and
language functions. On the other side, the high variety is diglossia. The latter can be treated as part of CS, especially in
called Bokmal which is the standard Norwegian variety; it is its diglossic switching phenomenon.
used in ‘high’ social functions. The case of this speech
community is described as a situational CS form by Blom and D. Code-switching versus interference
Gumperz (1972). However, Fasold (1984, p. 194) terms it as The distinction between CS and interference has not drawn as
“broad diglossia”. In this regard, Brown and Colin (1979, p. much attention and concern as the distinction between CS and
47) treat diglossia as a subset of CS, describing it as “a other language contact phenomena such as borrowing and
particularly tidy case of much more general phenomenon, CM. However, a number of linguists attempted to tackle this
CS”, and which depends on communication situations. The distinction from different perspectives. The phenomenon of
interference has been explored more in psycholinguistic and

573 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org

Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
interlanguage studies (Weinreich, 1953; Sharwood-Smith & or not CS and interference involve the same processing, the
Kellerman, 1986; Poplack, 1987; Grosjean, 2001). Other key issue in this context that needs further investigation is the
terms are used more or less interchangeably with interference ability of speakers to control their engagement in CS and
such as language transfer and cross-linguistic influence. One interference. Generally, it seems that speakers can take the
of the pioneers of contact linguistics is Uriel Weinreich. The decisions to code-switch or not, but it is less clear if speakers
latter uses the term interference as a cover term that includes can decide and control interference phenomenon in their
a range of language contact phenomena to refer to “instances speech in the same ways. This issue of speech control
of deviations from the norms of either language, which occur indicates that there are differences between CS and
in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with interference in terms of psycholinguistic processing
more than one language, i.e. as a result of their contact” (Treffers-Daller, 2009, p. 6).
(Weinreich, 1953, p. 1). Based on this definition, though
inexplicitly formulated, CS can be considered as an In relation to the issue of control, Poplack (1987)
instantiation of interference. Other researchers use other differentiates between smooth and flagged switching. The
related terms as umbrella terms which include CS, borrowing, former is effortless and fluid while the latter draws attention
and transfer. For example, Clyne (2003, p. 72) introduces the to itself; it is often marked by hesitation, repetition and so on.
notion of transference. For him, transference can occur at De Bot (2002) distinguishes between motivated and
different levels of analysis, and it includes certain kinds of CS performance switching. The first indicates the cases of CS in
(specifically insertions) which are seen as instantiations of which the speaker switches to the other language
transference, while he counts other kinds of CS (alternations intentionally, whereas the second, performance switching, is
and congruent lexicalization) as instances of transversion unintentional. Whether CS is intentional or unintentional
(Treffers-Daller, 2009, p. 14). raises a long debate among researchers. In the same line,
interference of linguistic elements is also considered
On the other hand, there are other researchers who see CS and unintentional and spontaneous. However, Treffers-Daller
interference as separate notions that cannot be included under (2009) questions if and when interference is used as a strategy
a single cover term. According to Poplack and Meechan or when elements transferred have entered the borrowing
(1995), CS is defined as “the juxtaposition of sentences or language permanently. Here comes in line another language
sentence fragments from two languages, each of which is contact phenomenon, borrowing.
internally consistent with the morphological and syntactic
(and optionally phonological) rules of its lexifier language” In this context, Grosjean (2001) distinguishes between
(p. 200). Therefore, CS involves the activation of two dynamic and static interference. Dynamic interferences take
different languages or language varieties. Concerning place when an element in a language appears accidently,
interference, it is used in a strictly monolingual context where without intention, in a sequence of another language. They
only one language is operational or activated. In this regard, are “ephemeral deviations due to the influence of the
Grosjean (1995) sees that interference takes place when “a deactivated language”. Static interferences refer to elements
speaker-specific deviation from language being spoken due which have become part of the implicit grammar of a person.
to the influence of the other ‘deactivated’ language” (p. 262). In this regard, Treffers-Daller (2009) wonders to what extent
Thus, interference indicates the influence that a language has CS can be considered as static or dynamic. The distinction
on the way a person uses another. In the same vein, McArthur between static and dynamic interferences is not often used by
(2012) argues that interference takes place in the speech of bi- researchers, especially in SLA (Treffers-Daller, 2009). This
/multilinguals, and it impacts different levels of language: may be traced to the fact that researchers in psycholinguistics
accent, pronunciation, syntax, morphology, vocabulary, and prefer to use the term transfer than interference as the latter
idioms. carries negative and suspect connotations.

De Bot (1992) states that it is difficult to distinguish the Researchers also distinguish between negative and positive
different language contact phenomena such as CS and transfer. The latter refers to the cases in which the knowledge
interference. For him, “many instances of cross-linguistic of a language helps in learning another while the former type
influences are related to code switching and cannot be simply occurs when learning new things is interfered and obstructed
separated from this on theoretical and empirical grounds” (De by previous learning experiences. Generally, when the
Bot, 1992, p. 19). In this regard, Pardis (1998) argues that languages involved are similar, the linguistic interference is
cross-linguistic influence cannot be distinguished positive, and when they are dissimilar, more obstacles and
unambiguously from CS phenomenon in terms of processing errors are made; hence, negative transfer. Other types of
( cited in De Bot, 2002, p. 291). As for Poplack (1990, p. 39) transfer have been discussed such as linguistic (formal and
“each of the mechanisms for combining material from two semantic) versus conceptual transfer (Jarvis & Pavlenko,
grammars within a single utterance result from two different 2008). Within the linguistic transfer, there are the formal
processes and is governed by different constraints”. Whether transfer which is related to inadvertent borrowing and the

574 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org

Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
semantic transfer is associated with the influence of another intersystemic influence. The same goes for CS,
language in the use of a target-language word. On the psycholinguists use language switching. The latter is hardly
contrary, conceptual transfer refers to the “ways in which ever mentioned by researchers on CS studies in general. CS
conceptual representations are structured and mapped to has been the most popular linguistic phenomenon in
language” (Javis & Pavlenko, 2008, p. 112). In the same line, language-contact studies. A lot of studies have been
Silva-Corvalán (1994, p. 4) differs between direct and conducted from different perspectives in an attempt to
indirect transfer. The former involves importation of a new investigate this phenomenon comprehensively. The
form from one language into another (e.g. lonche “lunch” in following section attempts to go through and explore more
Spanish) while the latter involves the use of a form which some of these popular studies on CS.
corresponds to a structure of the contact language.
REFERENCES
The distinction between language-contact phenomena has 1. Aabi, M. (1999). The syntax of Morrocan
witnessed an ongoing and indefinite consensus over the Arabic/French and Moroccan Arabic/Standard
terminologies to be used. However, some general conclusions Arabic codeswitching. (Ph.D thesis). Department of
should be made to advance this discussion. For CS and English Language and Linguistics, University of
interference, it has been marked that a number of researchers Sheffield.
(e.g. Poplack, 1990; De Bot, 1992; Grosjean, 1995) see that 2. Annamali,E. (1989). The language factor in code
it is difficult to clearly distinguish between them as both mixing. International journal of the sociology of
require the same processing and involve the impact of one language. Vol. 74, pp. 47-54.
language over another. Other researchers (e.g. McClure, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1989.75.47
1977; Poplack and Meechan, 1995) stress on the separation 3. Bassiouny, R. (2009). Arabic sociolinguistics.
of the two concepts as CS takes place in a bilingual setting Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
while interference occurs in monolingual contexts. However, 4. Bentahila, A. (1983). Language attitudes among
McArthur (2012) sees that interference can also occur in bi- Arabic-French bilinguals in Morocco. Clevedon:
/multilingual settings. For example, it can take place among Multilingual Matters.
children who learn two languages simultaneously; here, 5. Bentahila, A., & Davies, E. E. (1983). The syntax of
interference is not unidirectional as usually argued, but it can Arabic-French code-switching. Lingua, 59(4), pp.
be bi-directional. In this regard, interference can be seen more 301-330.
relative to CS than distinct. The key issue that calls for new 6. Bentahila, A. & Davies, E. E. (1991). Constraints on
investigation is to what extent CS and interference are code-switching: a look beyond grammar. In Papers
controlled by the participants. In other words, are they used for the Symposium on Code-Switching and
intentionally as discourse strategies or do they take place Bilingual Studies: Theory, Significance and
accidently and spontaneously? This investigation will prove Perspective, Barcelona. Strasbourg: ESF, pp. 396-
much more about the similarity and the differences between 404
CS and interference. 7. Blom, J.P. and J.J. Grumperz. (1972). Social
meaning in structure: Code-switching in Norway. In
V. CONCLUSION Direction of sociolinguistics, ed. J.J. Gumperz and
To sum up, this paper deals with the different concepts related D. Hymes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston ,
to language contact phenomena. As indicated before, it is pp. 402-434.
difficult to draw definite conclusions from the range of 8. Bokamba, E. (1988). Code-mixing, language
studies and definitions provided by linguists as some of them variation and linguistic theory: Evidence from Bantu
use different terminologies for apparently the same languages. Lingua 76, pp. 21-43.
phenomenon while others see the opposite. The key issue is 9. Bokamba, E. (1989). Are there syntactic constraints
not only to investigate whether linguists use various labels for in code-Mixing?. World Englishes 8, no. 3, pp. 277–
essentially similar phenomena, but also to explore if the 292.
linguistic phenomena under the investigation are 10. Boztepe, E. (2005). Issues in code-switching:
fundamentally distinct either at their manifestations at the competing theories and models. Teachers College,
surface level or in terms of mechanisms and processes which Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL &
result into these surface forms. The terminological confusion Applied Linguistics, 3(2).
also comes from using different labels in different 11. Bullock, E. B. and Toribio, A. J. (2009).The
neighboring disciplines. For example, with regard to the Cambridge handbook of linguistic code- switching,
notion of interference, SLA researchers avoid using ed. Bullock, E. Barbara and Toribio, A. Jacqueline.
interference; instead they prefer transfer or cross-linguistic Cambridge University Press, New York.
influence while psycholinguists still use the term interference, 12. Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact.
and scholars of language-induced contact use convergence or Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

575 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org

Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
13. Dabane, L. and M. Daniele. 1995. Bilingual speech 29. Heath, J. (2002). Jewish and Muslim dialects of
of migrant people. In One speaker, two languages: Moroccan Arabic. London & New York: Routledge
Cross-disciplinary perspective on code-switching Curzon.
ed. L. Milroy and P. Muysken. Cambridge: 30. Jarvis, Sand Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic
Cambridge University Press, pp. 17-41. influence in language and cognition. New York and
14. De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: London: Routledge, pp. 287-308.
Levelt‟s speaking model adapted. Applied 31. Kachru, B.B. (1978). Code-Switching as a
Linguistics 13, pp. 1–24. communicative strategy. In Interactional
15. Ennaji, M. (2002). Language contact, Arabization Dimensions of bilingual education, ed. J.J. Alatis.
policy and education in Morocco, in A. Rouchdy Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press, pp.
(ed.), Language contact and language conflict in 107-124.
Arabic: Variations on a sociolinguistic theme. 32. Kaye, A. S. (2002). Comment. International Journal
London: Routledge Curzon, pp. 7-8. of Sociology of Language, 157, pp. 117- 125.
16. Fasold, R. (1984). The sociolinguistics of society. 33. Li, W., Dewaele, J., and Housen, A (eds.). (2002).
Oxford: Blackwell. Opportunities and challenges of bilingualism.
17. Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, pp. 325- Mouton de Gruyter. New York.
340. 34. Matras, Y.(2009). Language contact. Cambridge
18. Ferguson, C.A. (1972). Language structure and etc.: Cambridge University Press.
language use. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 35. Mashiri, P. (2002). Shona-English code-mixing in
19. Fishman, J. A. (1985). The rise and fall of the ethnic the speech of students at the University of
revival. Berlin: Mouton. Zimbabwe. South African Linguistics and Applied
20. Gardner-Chloros, P. (1995). Code-switching in Language Studies 20: 245-261.
community, regional and national repertoires: The 36. Mazraani, N. (1997), Aspects of language variation
myth of discreteness of linguistic system. In One in Arabic political speech-making. Richmond:
speaker, two languages: Cross- disciplinary Curzon.
perspective on code-switching, ed. L. Milroy and P. 37. Mackey, W. F. (1967). Bilingualism as a world
Muysken, pp. 1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge problem. Montreal: Harvest House.
University Press. 38. McArthur, T. (2012). Concise Oxford companion to
21. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. the English language. Oxford University Press.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 39. McClure, E. (1977). Aspects of code-switching in
22. Gimode, J.K. (2015). A socio-pragmatic and the discourse of bilingual Mexican- American
stractural analysis of code-switching among children. Georgetown University Round Table on
the Logoli speech community of Kangemi, Nairobi, Languages and Linguistics, pp. 93-115.
Kenya. (Ph.D thesis). University of South Africa. 40. Milroy, L., and Muysken, P. (1995). One speaker,
23. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An two languages, cross-disciplinary perspectives on
Introduction to bilingualism. Harvard: Harvard codeswitching. Cambridge University Press
University Press. 41. Moradi, H. (2014). A survey on code-mixing,
24. Grosjean, F. (1995). A psycholinguistic approach to codeswitching, language alteration and interference.
code-switching: The recognition of guest words in Indian Journal of Applied Research, 4(10), pp. 62-
bilinguals. In One speaker, two languages: Cross- 64.
disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, ed. L. 42. Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech. A typology
Milroy and P. Muysken. Cambridge: Cambridge of code-switching. Oxford: Cambridge University
University Press, pp. 259-274. Press
25. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language 43. Myers-Scotton, C. (1992). Comparing code-
modes. In One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual switching and borrowing. Journal of Multilingual
Language Processing. Nicol, J. (Ed.). Oxford: and Multicultural Development 13(1-2), pp. 19-39.
Blackwell, pp. 1-22. 44. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages:
26. Halmari, H. (1997). Government and Grammatical structure in code-switching.
codeswitching: Explaining American Finnish. 45. Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics:
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes.
27. Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistics Oxford University Press. Oxford. New York.
borrowing. Language 26, pp. 210-231. 46. Myers-Scotton, C. (2005). Uniform structure:
28. Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian language in Looking beyond the surface in explaining code-
America: A study in bilingual behavior. switching. Rivsta di Linguitica 17(1), pp. 15-34.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

576 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org

Aziz Driouch, Code-Switching in Relation to Other Language-Contact Phenomena: A Theoretical Account
47. Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in 61. Tay, M.W. (1989). Code switching and code-mxing
bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and as a communicative strategy in multilingual
Cognition, 2, pp. 209-230. discourse. World Englishes, 8, pp. 407-417.
48. Pickles, M. (1999). La mère de mon père est née à 62. Treffers-Daller, J. (2009) Code-switching and
Grenade: The Spoken French of Teenagers in transfer: an exploration of similarities and
Perpignan. Ms., The International Conference, differences. In The Cambridge handbook of
Beyond Boundaries II, ESRI, University of Salford. linguistic code-switching. Bullock, B. E. and
49. Poplack, S. (1981). Syntactic structure and social Toribio, A. J. (eds.). Cambridge handbooks in
function. In Latin language and communicative language and linguistics. Cambridge University
behavior, R.P. Duran (ed.). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, Press, pp. 58-74.
pp.169-84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 63. Ugot, M. (2010). Language choice, code switching
50. Poplack, S. and D. Sankoff. 1984. Borrowing: The and code mixing in Biase. Global Journal of
synchrony of integration. Linguistics, 22, pp. 99- Humanities, 8(2), pp. 27–35.
136. 64. Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An introduction to
51. Poplack, S., S. Wheeler and A. Westwood.(1987). sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Distinguishing language contact phenomena: 65. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact:
Evidence from Finnish-English bilingualism. In The Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 6. P. 66. Weinreich, U. Labov, & Herzog.I. (1968). Empirical
Lilius and M. Saari, eds., (Helsinki: University of foundations for a theory of language change. In
Helsinki Press), pp. 22–56. Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium.
52. Poplack, S. (1990). Variation theory and language Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.).
contact: Concept, methods and data. In Papers for Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–195.
the workshop on concepts, methodology and data,
12-13 January. Strasbourg: European Science
Foundations, pp. 33-66
53. Poplack, S. & Meechan, M. (eds). (1998). Instant
loans, easy conditions: The productivity of bilingual
borrowing. Special Issue of the International Journal
of Bilingualism, London: Kingston Press.
54. Rene. A and Muysken, P. (2005). Language contact
and bilingualism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press. p. 228.
55. Riehl, C.M. (2005). Code-switching in bilingualism:
Impacts of mental processes and language
awareness. Proceedings of the 4th International
symposium on bilingualism, ed. In J. Cohen, K. T.
McAlister, K. Rolstad and J. MacSwan. Somerville:
Cascadilla Press, pp. 1945-1959.
nd
56. Romaine, S. (2 ed). (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
57. Saib, J. (1989). Mélange de codes au Maroc. Langue
et Société au Maghreb 13, pp. 45–71.
58. Sharwood-Smith, M., and E. Kellerman. (1986).
Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language
Acquisition: An Introduction. In E. Kellerman and
M. Sharwood-Smith, eds., pp. 1–9.
59. Silva-Corvalán,C. (1994). Language contact and
change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford studies in
language contact. Oxford: Clarendon. pp. xiv, 255.
60. Sridhar, S. N., and K. K. Sridhar. (1980). The syntax
and psycholinguistics of bilingual code mixing.
Canadian Journal of Psychology 34, no. 4, pp. 407-
416.

577 Avaliable at: www.ijssers.org