The Uniformity of the

Matrix Language in
Classic
Code-switching
Alberto Rosignoli

ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism Seminar Series

Bangor 6th April 2009

A definition
CODE-SWITCHING
The alternation of two languages within a single
discourse, sentence or costituent (Poplack 1980,
2000)

The concept of Asymmetry

The languages involved in CS do not contribute
equally to form bilingual utterances.
The language source of different types of
morphemes is constrained.
! Not a universal feature of CS theories.

Early work: Joshi 1985

Despite extensive intrasentential switching
speakers and hearers usually agree on which
language the mixed sentence is coming from.
Matrix Language vs Embedded Language
Existence of a control structure which allows shift
from the ML to the EL .
Nonswitchability of closed-class items.

The Matrix Language Frame Model

Myers-Scotton (1993, 1997, 2002)
Framework for the analysis of intrasentential
CS
A model of bilingual production
Based on Levelts 1989 Speaking Model

Asymmetry in the MLF

Asymmetry in the degree of participation of the
languages involved
Matrix Language (ML)
Embedded Language (EL)

Asymmetry in the retrieval procedures of

morphemes
Content morphemes
System morphemes

4-M Model
Content
morpheme
Conceptually
activated

Early
Late bridge
system
system
morpheme morpheme

Late
outsider
system
morpheme

Theta role
assigner/rec
eiver

Looks
outside max
proj

The MLF Unit of Analysis

In 1993: the discourse as a whole
After 1997: rejection of the discourse in favour of
the CP (projection of complementiser)

clause

The Matrix Language Principle

There is always an analyzable or resolvable frame
structuring the morphosyntax of any CP. This frame
is called the Matrix Language. In bilingual speech,
the participating languages never participate equally
as the source of the Matrix Language.
(Myers-Scotton,
2002: 8)

Classic CS

Identifying the ML: criteria

Identifying the ML: criteria

System Morpheme Criterion
In Matrix Language + Embedded Language constituents, all
system morphemes which have grammatical relations external to
their head constituent [] will come from the Matrix Language.
(Myers-Scotton, 1993a:83; 2002: 59)

Ex He sells me their prenotazioni for their seats but not my

ticket.
reservations

A Critique of the MLF (MacSwan 2000,

2005a, b)
Nothing constrains code switching apart from the
requirements of the mixed grammars.
CS is the union of two lexicons
No constraints specific to bilingual speech (no
ML).
Grammaticality of mixed utterances can be
ascertained through checking of features.

Feature-checking
The case of Spanish-English DPs (Moro 2001)
a. D, phi = {person, number, gender}
la

N, phi ={person, number, gender}

casa

b. D, phi = {person, number}

the

N, phi ={person, number}

house

c. D, phi = {person, number, gender}

la

N, phi ={person, number}

house

d. D, phi = {person, number}

*
the

N, phi ={person, number, gender}

casa

A comparison
Matrix Language Frame

Minimalist Program

Asymmetry between
participating languages.

No asymmetry between
participating languages.

In bilingual CPs where

Spanish is the ML DETs will
come from Spanish.

In bilingual CPs DETs will

always come from Spanish (see
feature mismatch).

English DETs will occur in

bilingual DPs where English is
the ML.

English DETs will not occur in

bilingual DPs.

Feature checking cont.

The non-occurrence of NPs of the type the casa
in available data could be due to factors other
than feature mismatch.

The argument relies partially on grammaticality

judgments by simultaneous bilinguals.

A MLF case study: Smith 2006

Spanish-English community in the US
56 speakers (10-20 mins per conversation)
The asymmetry between the ML and the EL in a
single utterance is replicated in the speech of an
entire community in which the community ML is
[] Spanish and the community EL is English.

Results

E> Sinsert
maestro y a nde vamos
a ir al
swimmin onde onde?
teacher and to where go.1.pl.pres to go to+the swimming where where
Teacher, and where are we going to go swimming where where?

S> Einsert
I dont want those (NOS?/NOSE?)* como three horns
I dont want those (nos?/nose?) like three horns

The ML as a dynamic construct

Because the ML is defined at the level of the CP, it is assumed
that the language providing the source of the ML could change
(as an extreme case) even within the same sentence, from one
CP to the following.
This, however, rarely seems to be the case in the available data

Myers-Scotton 1993 (Swahili-English)

Finlayson et al 1998 (Zulu-Sotho-English)
Boussofara Omar 2003 (Standard/Tunisian Arabic)
Owens 2005 (Standard/Nigerian Arabic-Hausa-English)
Smith 2006 (Spanish-English)
Deuchar 2006 (Welsh-English)

Extended
use
of
the
ML
Myers-Scotton (2002) ML of the discourse
Smith (2006) Community ML

ML is the same
for every CP

ML changes at
every successive
CP

Not accounted for in the MLF

Most data show far less variability as regards the source of the ML than the
model allows.

Problems with the MLF

The ML as a dynamic
construct

!Uniformity of the ML

The CP as the unit of

analysis

!ML beyond the CP

Analysis of well-formed
CPs

!Naturalistic data

A shift of perspective?
Uniformity in ML assignment in bilingual CPs is
the factor that justifies the extended use of the
ML construct.
Rather than imprecise applications, these uses
are capturing a generalisation that the model
does not explain.
Motivation is normally found within a
sociolinguistic framework (e.g. Markedness)

CS studies on a continuum
Micro-level

Macro-level

(syntax)

(sociolinguistics)

Conversational
structure?

A conversation analysis perspective

Interest in the issue of the base language of the
conversation
Part of the overall organisation of the discourse

Different coverage of naturalistic data

No well-formedness requirements

Problematising the notion of code in language

alternation
What counts as a code for participants?

A typology of code-alternation (Auer)

Discourse-related

Participantrelated

Insertion

Code-switching

Change of the base

language

*SAR: vabb no io un po che non vado al cinema .

(well no I havent been to the cinema in a while)
*ANT: hmm@ 0 [>] .
*SAR: per [<] # come sai non ho tempo &=sigh di fare niente xxx [>] .
(but as you know I havent got time to do anything)
*ANT: <come va il phd> [<] ?
(hows the PhD going?)
gonna [: going to] go finish it ?
*SAR: ah PhD eh ho avuto un momento brutto # mercoled [>] .
(ah PhD I had a bad moment on Wednesday)
*ANT: perch [<] ?
(why?)
*SAR: perch: Laura Layton era incazzata con tutti mercoled .
(because Laura Layton was pissed off with everyone on
Wednesday)
&e: hmm &e: stava per scoppiare.
(hmm uuh and she was about to burst)

infatti ieri ho parlato con altra gente mi fan+"/.

(actually yesterday I spoke to some others and they were like)
+"/ arrivata a un punto che neanche lei non ne pu pi .
(shes come to the stage where she herself cant take it anymore)
*ANT: in che senso [>] ?
(how do you mean?)
*SAR: perch ha le sue deadline per <la fine del> [<] mese .
(because shes got her own deadlines at the end of the month)
*ANT: hmm .
*SAR: e: ha tutti (que)sti studenti # ehm dieci st(udenti) [//] dieci PhD
students # e: [>1] .
(and she has all these students ehm ten st(udents) ten PhD students)
*ANT: <non ce la fa pi> [<1] <anche lei> [>2] .
(she too cant take it anymore)
*SAR: e non ce la fa pi perch ognuno ha unproblema .
(she cant take it anymore because everyone has got a problem)

*SAR: e allora gli ho detto che appunto <ho inv(itato)> [//] avevo ricevuto
questo invito da Catherine .
(so I told him right that I inv(ited) that I received this
invitation from Catherine)
Catherine <era la:> [/] era la supervisor di: ehm Paul [>] .
(Catherine was Pauls supervisor)
*ANT: ah [<] s s .
(ah yes yes)
*SAR: hmm.
che abita qua intorno [>] .
(who lives around here)
*ANT: hmm [<] .
*SAR: e allora fa:
(so he goes like)
+/ma ha detto che ha [//] fa il compleanno perch ha raggiunto: quell'et
in cui c' zero no .
(so she said shes having her birthday because she got to that
age in which there is zero, right)

*ANT:
*SAR:

mhmm <# zero> [>] ?

<e: allora fa> [<] +/.
(so she goes like)
*SAR: +/ zero # c' lo z(ero) [/] zero in it .
(zero # theres zero in it)
*SAR
e: e allora [>] .
(and and then)
*ANT: forty . [<]
*SAR: four # e allora <mi fa per> [?] +"/.
(four # and so she goes but)
+"/ you have to guess [>] .
*ANT: hmm [<] .
*SAR: mi ha detto +"/.
(she said to me)
+"/ e: you have to guess ehm quanti anni ho .
(uuh you have to guess uhm what my age is)
ehm: allora ho pensato io +"/.
(uhm and so I thought)
+"/ sar quaranta .
(she must be forty)
*ANT: hmm [>] .
*SAR: non [<] penso che ne abbia cinquanta # e neanche trenta .
(I dont think shes fifty or even thirty)

The future
Comparing the two frameworks, with particular
reference to data covered by both
(using English-Italian data)
Assess whether the contribution of a CA-type
approach can offer a satisfactory explanation for the
regularities encountered in CS that the MLF cannot
readily account for.
Can a CA approach reveal whether a switched item
counts as such for participants themselves?

Thanks to
Present (and past) members of the ESRC Bilingualism
Centre Corpus Based Research Group and AHRC project
Margaret Deuchar
Maria del Carmen Parafita Couto
Dirk Bury
Peredur Davies
Jon Herring
Sian Lloyd
Elen Robert
Jonathan Stammers

Grazie
Diolch
Thank you