languages

Article
Code-Switching in Linguistics: A Position Paper
Margaret Deuchar
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK; [email protected]




Received: 25 January 2019; Accepted: 6 December 2019; Published: 18 May 2020


Abstract: This paper provides a critical review of the state of the art in code-switching research
being conducted in linguistics. Three issues of theoretical and practical importance are explored:
(a) code-switching vs. borrowing; (b) grammaticality; and (c) variability vs. uniformity, and I
take a position on all three issues. Regarding switching vs. borrowing, I argue that not all lone
other-language items are borrowings once more subtle measures of integration are used. I defend the
use of empirical data to compare competing theoretical frameworks of grammaticality, and I exemplify
quantitative research on variability in code-switching, showing that it also reveals uniformity and
the possible influence of community norms. I conclude that more research is needed on a range of
bilingual communities in order to determine the relative contribution of individual factors, processing
and community norms to the variability and uniformity of code-switching.

Keywords: code-switching; bilingualism; linguistics

1. Introduction
In this paper I will attempt to present, for an interdisciplinary audience, my view of code-switching
from linguistics. Linguists themselves do not agree on some of the core issues guiding research in
linguistics and therefore I will present these issues from my own perspective while considering some
of the counter-arguments to my point of view. I will focus on three particularly divisive issues,
the differentiation of code-switching from borrowing, the methods for evaluating competing models of
grammaticality in code-switching, and the importance of studying variable as well as uniform patterns
in code-switching. Virtually all researchers working on code-switching will need to take a position on
these issues, whatever is their disciplinary background.
To begin with concrete examples of what I mean by code-switching, the following examples1 from
the Welsh/English and Spanish/English data available on the Bangortalk2 website will help to illustrate.
1. pan dach chi ‘n defnyddio wide-angle lenses
when be.2PL.PRES PRON.2PLLL PRT use.NONFIN wide-angle lenses
‘When you use wide-angle lenses . . .
dach chi ‘n emphasize-iodefnyddio ‘r foreground
be.2PL.PRES PRON.2PLL PRTT emphasize-NONFINNNNNN DET foreground
PRO.2PL
PRO.2PL
‘ . . . you emphasize the foreground’ [Fusser17-BEN]

1 In the data examples, italics are used for English words and normal font for words for other languages. Glosses are as follows:
1 = 1st person, 2 = 2nd person, 3 = 3rd person, DET = determiner, IMP = imperfect, NONFIN = nonfinite, PL = plural,
PRES = present tense, PRON = pronoun, PRT = particle.
2 bangortalk.org.uk.

Languages 2020, 5, 22; doi:10.3390/languages5020022 www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

Languages 2020, 5, 22 2 of 19

2. el siempre me da cumplidos así

PRON.3S always PRON.1S give.3S.PRES compliment.PL thus
‘He’s always paying me compliments like that . . . ’
so I said to him
defnyddio
So PRON.1S said to PRON.3S
PRO.2PL
PRO.2PL
‘ . . . so I said to him . . . ’
talk to me in two more years
talk to PRON.1S in two more year.PL
‘ . . . “Talk to me in two more years”’ [Sastre9-VAL]
In Example (1) the speaker is using mainly Welsh, but inserts some English words and phrases
(indicated in italics). In Example (2) the speaker starts off in Spanish and then switches to English.
The English insertions in Example (1) illustrate what I call intraclausal switching, while Example (2)
exemplifies interclausal switching in that a clause entirely in Spanish is followed by a (complex) clause
entirely in English.
As outlined above, the three issues to be discussed in this chapter are as follows: code-switching
vs. borrowing, grammaticality, and variability and uniformity. While grammaticality and variability
are issues of concern to linguists working on any language or languages, the issue of code-switching
vs. borrowing is peculiar to those working on bilingual data.

2. Code-Switching vs. Borrowing

Weinreich (1953, p. 11) was one of the first to draw a distinction between code-switching and
borrowing. He used the term ‘interference’ to describe a situation where a bilingual is speaking
language X but produces an ‘on-the-spot borrowing’ or ‘nonce borrowing’ from language Y (which we
refer to here as ‘code-switching’). This is different, he argued, from a situation where a bilingual
produces a word from Y which is an established element in language X (which we refer to here
as ‘borrowing’).
The issue of distinguishing between switches and borrowing in bilingual speech has been described
by Poplack and Meechan (1998, p. 127) as being “at the heart of a fundamental disagreement among
researchers about data”, a disagreement which persists even twenty years later. Doubt about the
classification of other-language material as either switches or borrowings arises particularly in relation
to single words, whereas the longer the stretch of other-language material the easier it generally is to
identify that material as a switch. So, with reference to Example (1) we may say without hesitation that
the phrase wide-angle lenses is a switch into English, but we might have more doubts about the status of
the single words emphasize and foreground. The vocabulary of Welsh includes many well established
English borrowings, so one might wonder whether foreground is one of these (although it is not in fact,
according to our criteria).
Example 3 below, like example 1, contains a word of English origin, siop, ‘shop’, but in this case
we consider it a borrowing rather than a switch. In our work (see e.g., Deuchar et al. 2018) we classify
it as a borrowing because it is listed as such in the authoritative Welsh dictionary Geiriadur Prifysgol
Cymru3 , which also provides evidence of its usage in Welsh from the fourteenth century onwards.
3. a mae gynno Fo siop yn Gaernarfon
and.CONJ be.V.3.S.PRES with_him PRON.3SM.3.S shop in.PREP Caernarfon

3 geiriadur.ac.uk/gpc/gpc.html.
Languages 2020, 5, 22 3 of 19

‘And he’s got a shop in Caernarfon’ [Fusser16-ANW]

Words like foreground in Example (1) and siop/shop in Example (3) would be described by some
investigators as ‘LOLIs’, or ‘lone other language items’ (cf. Poplack and Meechan 1998) on the grounds
that they originate in other languages, either in the past history of the recipient language (and are
borrowings in the recipient language), or at the time of the speaker’s utterance (and are switches). It is
the ‘lone’ or single other-language items which are particularly difficult to classify as either switches or
borrowings. Other-language phrases, or chunks of other-language material like wide-angle lenses are
easier to classify as switches, partly because the internal syntax of the phrase can give us a clue. In the
phrase wide-angle lenses the syntax of a modifier (wide-angle) preceding a head noun (lenses) follows the
syntax of English rather than Welsh, in which modifiers generally follow their head nouns. This makes
it a clear switch for most researchers. However, it is important to point out here that the internal syntax
of a phrase from the other language does not always follow that of the donor language. This is pointed
out by Poplack (1988, p. 224) in relation to Example (4) below which comes from her French/English
corpus, and in which she points out that building high-rise follows French rather than English syntax:
4. à côté il y en a un autre gros building high-rise. (‘Next-door there’s another big high-rise building’)
This type of example is not further discussed in Poplack’s paper but should arguably be treated as
involving two separate switches, building and high-rise which are inserted following the (head-modifier)
syntax of the recipient language, French. However, in Poplack’s recent book (Poplack 2018, p. 210)
she describes “multiword fragments” from a donor language as “unambiguous code-switches”.
As Example (4) illustrates, they are not always unambiguous, and in our Welsh/English data we find
several examples of multiword fragments which contain English words but do not follow English
syntax. Example (5) below illustrates the point.
5. ges i dream weird neithiwr sti
get.V.1S.PAST I.PRON.1S dream weird last_night you_know
‘I had a weird dream last night, you know’. [Robert3-BTI]
Returning to the problem of classifying LOLIs as either switches or borrowings, Poplack and
Meechan (1998) attempt to propose a foolproof method in their “comparative method” (Poplack and
Meechan 1998, p. 130). This involves a quantitative analysis of relevant morphosyntactic patterns in the
two contact languages when they are used monolingually or without mixing, and then a comparison
of the results with the morphosyntactic patterns in mixed discourse in which a lone item from another
‘donor’ language is being used in a recipient language. If the patterns in which the donor-language
item is being used are similar to those used in the recipient language when it is unmixed, they consider
the item be linguistically integrated and therefore to be a borrowing rather than a switch. If on the
other hand the morphosyntactic patterns are more similar to those of the unmixed donor language,
then the lone other-language item is classified as a switch. Poplack and Meechan (1998) and Poplack
and Dion (2012) interpret what they find to be frequent integration of LOLIs as indicating that “lone
other-language items tend to be borrowed” (Poplack and Dion 2012, p. 296). They consider lone
other-language items to be borrowed even if they occur infrequently, and use the term ‘nonce borrowing’
for infrequent other-language items that show morphosyntactic integration into the recipient language.
However, I would argue that Poplack and colleagues do not sufficiently take into account the fact
that there are different degrees of morphosyntactic integration, and that an alternative perspective
(cf. Myers-Scotton 1993, p. 183) would argue that ‘central’ types of integration like using the word
order and inflections of the recipient language may apply to all LOLIs, while more peripheral types of
integration may allow us to distinguish switches from borrowings. An example of a peripheral type
of integration may be found in the application of the mutation of initial consonants in English verbs
used in Welsh/English code-switching (see Stammers and Deuchar 2012; Deuchar and Stammers 2016).
The rate of mutation of all verbs (both Welsh and English-origin) was related to their frequency of
occurrence in the Siarad corpus (see bangortalk.org.uk) but there was a clear difference between the
Languages 2020, 5, 22 4 of 19

integration of both Welsh and English-origin verbs found in the Welsh dictionary and English-origin
verbs not in the Welsh dictionary. We interpreted this as indicating an important role for ‘listedness’
(see Muysken 2000, p. 71). Thus a (high) rate of mutation, close to that for Welsh verbs, was postulated
as indicating a borrowed English-origin verb, whereas a significantly lower rate of mutation was a
hallmark of those English-origin verbs not found in the Welsh dictionary. Using mutation as a subtle
measure of linguistic integration we could distinguish clearly between borrowings and switches and
found the category of ‘nonce borrowing’ to be redundant, given that there were no low frequency LOLIs
that were not established borrowings but which had a high degree of this subtle type of integration.
Although Poplack and colleagues do not appear to have recognised a distinction between more
central and more peripheral morphosyntactic integration, they do recognise the potential role of
phonological integration in identifying borrowings versus switches, though Poplack’s latest (2018,
p. 185) verdict is that it does not play a role. In her early work (e.g., Poplack 1980) she suggested
that a clear case of borrowing would involve phonological, morphological and syntactic integration,
but extensive research led her to argue that “In many bilingual communities, phonological integration
of loanwords is highly variable . . . disqualifying phonology as a (foolproof) criterion” Poplack (2000,
p. 221). This conclusion became widely accepted by code-switching researchers as shown by Bullock’s
(2009) statement that “The failure of all borrowings to be consistently adapted to the phonology of
the source language led to the abandonment of phonological integration as a necessary property of
loan words” (Bullock 2009, p. 166). One reason for the widespread acceptance of this conclusion
was the recognition that bilingual speakers may have a higher degree of proficiency in one of their
languages than the other, and that, especially where they have acquired one language later than the
other, the second language may have characteristics of ‘non-native’ pronunciation. In other words,
some bilingual speakers will be more able to integrate LOLIs phonetically than others. Poplack (2018)
argues that despite the copious evidence provided by Poplack et al. (1988) regarding the high degree
of phonetic variability in other-language items, no one factor (even proficiency) has been found to
account for the variability. This leads her to suggest that “phonetic and morphosyntactic integration
can proceed independently” (Poplack 2018, p. 185) and that “Phonetic integration of borrowed material
should not simply be assumed; it must be established first on a speaker-by-speaker basis, and then
community by community”.
This challenge is taken up by Bessett (2017a, 2017b), who sets out to determine whether
phonological and morphosyntactic integration are correlated in the speech of Spanish-English bilinguals
in Southern Arizona. He analysed the speech of 24 residents of Southern Arizona in either Tucson
or Nogales, whose families came from the Mexican state of Sonora on the other side of the border
between the USA and Mexico. All participants except one had been born in the USA or arrived before
the age of ten, and were highly proficient in both Spanish and English. In choosing these participants
Bessett was thus able to control for the variable of proficiency and to assume that speakers were able
to use native-like pronunciation of both Spanish and English words if they chose to do so. Bessett
investigated the morphological and phonetic integration of lone English nouns (‘LOLNs’) surrounded
by Spanish in the speech of his participants. In coding English LOLNs for morphological integration,
Bessett noted whether each noun had a determiner or was bare, since the distribution of nouns with
and without determiners contrasts in English and Spanish. He found that while established English
noun borrowings in Spanish were morphosyntactically integrated in Spanish according to the Spanish
norms for determiner presence vs. absence, this was not always the case for English noun insertions
that were not established borrowings. In particular, English generic nouns that were not established
borrowings were likely to be inserted without any determiner, following the pattern characteristic of
that in English but not Spanish, where generic nouns appear with determiners. This is an excellent
example of using a ‘peripheral’ kind of morphosyntactic integration in order to study the borrowing vs.
code-switching status of LOLIs. He also coded the same LOLNs for ‘English phonology’ vs. ‘Spanish
phonology’, having established that his judgments agreed both with those of 19 monolingual English
participants and with an acoustic analysis using PRAAT. LOLNS with English-like morphology (based
Languages 2020, 5, 22 5 of 19

on determiner presence vs. absence) and/or phonology were considered to be morphosyntactically

and/or phonologically integrated into Spanish, the recipient language. His results showed a correlation
between the two types of integration, leading him to suggest that phonological integration may be
relevant in distinguishing borrowings from switches. This research thus represents an innovative
lifting of the ban on considering the phonological integration of LOLIs and should be pursued further
in relation to more data in a range of different corpora.

3. Grammaticality
The notion of grammaticality is usually understood to refer to the rule-governed nature of
language. Crystal (2008, p. 219) defines the term as referring to “the conformity of a sentence (or part
of a sentence) to the rules defined by a specific grammar of a language”. This definition makes clear
the general assumption that the rules of grammar are language-specific, and does not deal with the
question of what happens if you combine material from two languages in the same sentence or clause.
In code-switching between clauses of the kind illustrated in Example (2) above, this is not so much of an
issue because it can be assumed that the grammar of Spanish applies to the first clause el siempre me da
cumplidos así (‘He always gives me compliments like this’) while the grammar of English applies to the
next sentence so I said to him ‘Talk to me in two more years’. But in the case of intraclausal code-switching
as in Example (1) we can reasonably ask whether we should evaluate grammaticality either in terms
of Welsh or English grammar, or neither. Despite the fact that Labov (1971, p. 457) described the
intraclausal code-switching of a New York Puerto Rican Spanish/English bilingual as “the irregular
mixture of two distinct systems”, stating that no one had yet been able to identify any systematic
rules or constraints, constraints were indeed being postulated by the end of the 1970s. Pfaff (1979)
produced one of the first such studies, in which she argued that the “mixture of Spanish and English,
whether in isolated loan words or in code-switching of clauses and sentences, while socially motivated,
is subject to clear linguistic constraints” (Pfaff 1979, p. 291). She based her conclusions on the analysis
of a corpus of Spanish/English conversational data from about 200 speakers of various ages and social
backgrounds. The scope of her coverage is impressive for those early days, and she provides plenty
of examples to illustrate her proposed constraints. She concludes that “It is unnecessary to posit the
existence of a third grammar to account for the utterances in which the languages are mixed; rather, the
grammars of Spanish and English are meshed according to a number of constraints” (Pfaff 1979, p. 314).
She summarises the structural constraints as favouring “Surface structures common to both languages”,
illustrating this with evidence showing combination of Spanish auxiliaries and English participles,
contrasted with the apparently prohibited mixing of adjectives and nouns within NPs where the
surface order of adjectives in relation to nouns in Spanish and English is different. This observation is
echoed in Poplack’s ‘Equivalence constraint’, according to which “Code switches will tend to occur at
points in discourse were juxtaposition of L1 and L2 elements does not violate a syntactic rule of either
language” (Poplack 1980, p. 586). This generalization is expressed in the more modern notion of a
tendency towards ‘congruence’ (cf. Deuchar 2005; Sebba 2009) although current theories are now more
able to account for the counter-examples to the equivalence constraint which subsequent investigators
discovered. Nartey (1982), for example, reports on code-switching between English and Adãŋme,
a Western Kwa language spoken in Ghana. Nominal constructions in these two languages provide a
good example of non-equivalence of word order, in that whereas the normal English order is Det +
Adj + N, in Adãŋme it is the reverse: N + Adj + Det. Nevertheless, Nartey’s data include insertions
of an English adjective between an Adãŋme noun and an Adãŋme determiner, as in Figure 1 below,
and of English noun and adjectives inserted in otherwise Adãŋme sentences in both Adãŋme order
(see Figure 2) and English order (see Figure 3).
 Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

Languages 2020,
Languages 22x FOR PEER REVIEW
5, 5,
2020, 66ofof1919

Figure 1. Insertion of English adjective between Adãŋme noun and Adãŋme determiner (from Nartey
1982, p. 187, example 4).
Figure 1. Insertion of English adjective between Adãŋme noun and Adãŋme determiner (from Nartey
1982, p. 187, example 4).

Figure 1. Insertion of English adjective between Adãŋme noun and Adãŋme determiner (from Nartey
Figure 1. Insertion of English adjective between Adãŋme noun and Adãŋme determiner (from Nartey
1982, p. 187, example 4).
1982, p. 187,
Figure exampleof
1. Insertion 4).English adjective between Adãŋme noun and Adãŋme determiner (from Nartey
1982, p. 187, example 4).

Figure 2. Insertion of English noun and adjective in Adãŋme order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example
5).
Figure 2. Insertion of English noun and adjective in Adãŋme order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example
Figure
5). 2. Insertion of English noun and adjective in Adãŋme order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example 5).
Figure 2. Insertion of English noun and adjective in Adãŋme order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example
5).
Figure 2. Insertion of English noun and adjective in Adãŋme order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example
5).

Figure 3. Insertion of English noun and adjective in English order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example
Figure 3. Insertion of English noun and adjective in English order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example 6).
6).
Figure 3. Insertion of English noun and adjective in English order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example
In
6). addition
In addition to to the
the equivalence
equivalence constraint,
constraint, Poplack (1980) also
Poplack (1980) also proposed
proposed the the freefree morpheme
morpheme
constraint, according to
constraint, according to which
which “Codes
“Codes may may be be switched
switched after
after any
any constituent
constituent in in discourse
discourse provided
provided
Figure 3. Insertion of English noun and adjective in English order (from Nartey 1982, p. 187, example
that constituent
that constituent is
is not
not aa bound
bound morpheme”
morpheme” (Poplack
(Poplack 1980,
1980, pp.pp.
In addition to the equivalence constraint, Poplack (1980) also proposed the free morpheme 585–86).
585–86). ThisThis
is is illustrated
illustrated by by oft-
the the
6).
oft-cited
cited example
Figure
example
constraint, according *eat-iendo
3. *eat-iendo
Insertion which ‘eating’,
toof‘eating’,
English nounrepresenting
and
representing
“Codes mayadjective
bethe the
in
free
switched free
English
EnglishEnglish
order
after any(from
morpheme morpheme
Nartey
constituent ineat,
1982,
eat, followed p.followed
187,
discoursebyexample
the by the
bound
provided
bound
Spanish Spanish
6).morpheme
that constituent morpheme
is -iendo
not a -iendo
indicating
bound indicating
morpheme”a presenta(Poplack
present 1980,
participle.participle.
However,
pp. However,
she adds
585–86). Thisshe
the
is adds
caveatthe
illustrated caveat
that this
by the that
kind
oft-
In addition to the equivalence constraint, Poplack (1980) also proposed the free morpheme
this
of kind of
combination
cited combination
exampleaccordingmay be allowed
*eat-iendo may be
‘eating’, allowed if one
if one of the morphemes of the morphemes
has been has been phonologically
phonologically integrated integrated
into the
constraint,
Inlanguage
addition to-iendo
the to which representing
equivalence “Codes may the
constraint,
free English
be switched
Poplack aftermorpheme
(1980) anyalso
eat, followed
constituent
proposed inthe by the
discourse
free
bound
provided
morpheme
into the
language
Spanish of the other.
morpheme of the other.
Nartey Nartey
(1982)a is
indicating (1982)
doubtful
present isparticiple.
doubtful about
about However,
the the applicability
applicability
she addsof the ofcaveat,
thiscaveat this caveat,
thatand
this and
finds
kind
that constituent is not awhich
bound“Codes
morpheme” (Poplack 1980, pp. 585–86). This is illustrated by the oft-
ofconstraint,
finds
evidence evidence
combination
cited
according
in his inmay
data
example *eat-iendo be toallowed
hisagainst
data against
the constraint.
if
‘eating’, one of may
the constraint.
representing
be switched
Hemorphemes
the even He even
reports after
the free1980,
reports
an
has
English
any
example
been constituent
an example
(see Figure
phonologically
morpheme eat,
in
(see discourse
4 Figure
integrated
followed byby
provided
below) 4whichbelow)
into
the
is
the
bound
that
which
exactly
languageconstituent
isparallel
exactly
of theto is not
parallel
eat-iendo
other. a bound
to in morpheme”
eat-iendo
Nartey that it in
(1982) that
involves (Poplack
it involves pp.
the inflection
the inflection of the 585–86). This
of theverb
English is
English
of help illustrated
verb
withhelp
an andwith
Adãŋmethe oft-
an
Spanish
cited morpheme
example *eat-iendo -iendo indicating
‘eating’, aispresent
representing
doubtful
the
about
participle.
free
the
English
applicability
However,
morphemeshe adds
eat,
this
followed
caveat,
the caveat that
by the
finds
this
bound kind
Adãŋme
tense
evidence tense
marker:in his marker:
data against the constraint. He even reports an example (see Figure 4 below) which is
of combination
Spanish morpheme may be
-iendo allowed
indicating if one
a of the
present morphemes
participle. has been
However, phonologically
she adds the integrated
caveat that thisintokindthe
exactly parallel to eat-iendo in that it involves the inflection of the English verb help with an Adãŋme
oflanguage
tensecombination
marker:
of the may other. Nartey if(1982)
be allowed one ofisthe doubtful
morphemes abouthasthebeenapplicability of thisintegrated
phonologically caveat, and intofinds
the
evidence in his data against the constraint. He even reports
language of the other. Nartey (1982) is doubtful about the applicability of this caveat, and an example (see Figure 4 below) which
findsis
exactly parallel
evidence in his data to eat-iendo
against the in that it involves
constraint. He theeveninflection
reports an of example
the English (seeverb
Figure help4 with
below) anwhich
Adãŋme is
tense marker:
exactly parallel to eat-iendo in that it involves the inflection of the English verb help with an Adãŋme
tense marker:

Figure 4. Evidence against the free morpheme constraint (from Nartey 1982, p. 185, example 3).
Figure 4. Evidence against the free morpheme constraint (from Nartey 1982, p. 185, example 3).
It is worth noting at this point that Poplack’s original constraints referred to switch points rather
than Ittoisthe
worthnature of material switched, whereas in the constraints
earlier sections of thisswitch
paperpoints
we referred
Figure 4.noting
Evidenceat this point
against thethat
free Poplack’s
morphemeoriginal
constraint (from Nartey referred
1982, p.to185, example 3). rather
to
thaninsertions of other-language
to the nature material whereas
of material switched, as switches.
in the Researchers do not
earlier sections of always
this papermake weclear which
referred to
definition
insertions they are using,
of other-language
It is worth but recent
material
noting at this point research
thatas suggests
switches.
Poplack’s that
Researchers
original referring
constraints to
do not switch
always
referred points alone
make points
to switch is
clear which not
rather
sufficiently Figure 4. Evidence
explanatory. against
Asbut
werecent theshow
shall free morpheme
below, constraint
reference (from Nartey 1982, p. 185,
toreferring
the morphosyntax of theexample
entire 3).
clause
definition
than to thethey are of
nature using,
material switched, research suggests
whereas in thethat
earlier toof
sections switch points
this paper wealone is not
referred to
isinsertions
necessary.
Figure 4. Evidence against the free morpheme constraint (from Nartey 1982, p. 185, example 3).
It is of other-language
worth noting at thismaterial
point that asPoplack’s
switches.original
Researchers do not
constraints alwaystomake
referred switchclear
points which
rather
Given they
definition the counter-examples
are using, but to Poplack’s
recent research constraints,
suggests that Poplack
referring(2001)
to argues
switch that alone
points the notion
is notto
thanItto the nature of material switched, whereas in the earlier sections of this paper we referred
of constraints
is worth onnoting
code-switching
at this point should be replaced
that Poplack’s by that
original of general
constraints principles.
referred to switch One of these
points rather
insertions of other-language material as switches. Researchers do not always make clear which
principles,
than to the I would
naturesuggest, is that
of material of asymmetry
switched, whereasbetween the contribution
in the earlier sections of ofthisthe two languages
paper we referred into
definition they are using, but recent research suggests that referring to switch points alone is not
code-switching. Joshi (1982) wasmaterial
insertions of other-language one of the asearliest code-switching
switches. Researchers researchers
do not always to provide
make evidence
clear which of
an asymmetry between open and closed class items in code-switching, using Marathi/English data.
definition they are using, but recent research suggests that referring to switch points alone is not
Languages 2020, 5, 22 7 of 19

Labelling the two languages of a bilingual the ‘matrix’ vs. the ‘embedded’ language, he argued that
the matrix language is the source in bilingual speech of both open and closed class (e.g., determiners,
prepositions, tense-marked verbs) items, whereas the embedded language can only supply open class
items (e.g., nouns, adjectives). We illustrate this asymmetry from our own Welsh/English data in
Example (6):
6. mae Americans yn mwy commercial.
be.3S.PRES Americans PRT more commercial
“Americans are more commercial.” [Fusser27-Lis]
In this example an English noun Americans and the English adjective commercial have been inserted
into an otherwise Welsh clause. Both of these English words belong to open class categories. However,
the finite verb mae4 comes from the matrix language, Welsh, as one would expect from a closed class
word. In order to demonstrate that we have not identified Welsh as the matrix language purely on the
basis of the closed class item mae, we can point out that the word order of the clause follows that of
Welsh (a VSO language) rather than English (SVO) in that the verb appears first.
Joshi’s (1982) distinction between the matrix and the embedded language in code-switching is
built upon by Myers-Scotton (2002) in her Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model. The asymmetry
mentioned above is captured in her ‘Asymmetry Principle’ which she describes as being reflected
in bilingual speech in “the morphosyntactic dominance of one variety in the frame” of a clause
(Myers-Scotton 2002, p. 9). The language which provides the morphosyntactic frame of the clause is
referred to as the ‘matrix language’. The other language is the ‘embedded language’, and material in
this language constitutes the switches away from the matrix language. Whereas there is no restriction
on the grammatical categories of constituents from the matrix language, only certain broadly ‘open
class’ items can be drawn from the embedded language. An exception to this restriction is where a
‘chunk’ of embedded language items appear together.
In identifying the matrix language in our data (see bangortalk.org.uk) we draw on Myers-Scotton’s
“System Morpheme Principle and the Morpheme Order Principle (Myers-Scotton 2002, p. 59)” as
described and exemplified by Deuchar et al. (2018, pp. 115–18). As explained in more detail by
Deuchar et al. 2018, the matrix language of a clause can by identified by the language of a particular
kind of ‘system morpheme’, e.g., an inflection on a finite verb which agrees with the subject of the verb.
In addition, it can also be identified by the order of the words or morphemes in the clause. This can be
illustrated by Example (7) below from our Welsh/English data:
7. oedd ‘na fath â ryw alley yna bach Yna
be.3S.IMP there kind with some alley little There
‘There was kind of a little alley there.’ [Davies6-Hec]
As shown by the gloss of the first word oedd, which is the finite verb, the verb is marked as third
person singular, which agrees with the third person subject ryw alley bach (‘Some little alley’). The fact
that the agreement is expressed by a Welsh morpheme is an indicator that the matrix language of the
clause is Welsh. This is then confirmed by looking at the word order, as the verb comes first as in
Welsh (a VSO language), and the adjective bach (‘little’) follows the noun as in Welsh (in contrast to
adjective-noun order as in English). Thus according to both the System Morpheme Principle and the
Morpheme Order Principle, the matrix language of the clause in Example (7) is Welsh.
Myers-Scotton’s (2002) Matrix Language Frame model (MLF) is arguably the most influential
model of code-switching, and works well in accounting for data from many language pairs (see e.g.,
Blokzijl et al. 2017a, Carter et al. 2011, Deuchar et al. 2018, Ihemere 2016, Khan and Khalid 2018). Before

4 The Welsh verb is in singular form since this is the default when the subject (Americans) is non-pronominal (see Borsley et al.
2007, p. 34).
 Languages 2020, 5, 22 8 of 19

deciding to use it in our analysis, however, we evaluated four alternative models according to whether
or not they (1) were designed to deal with production data; (2) could analyse individual clauses; and
(3) applied to both monolingual and bilingual data. The MLF was the only model evaluated which
satisfied all criteria (see Carter et al. 2011, p. 157) and was chosen by us for our analysis. A quantitative
implementationFigure Figure
ofFigure 5.Quantitative
it, coding Quantitative
all clauses
Quantitative
5. 5. asdistribution ofmatrix
either bilingual
distribution
distributionof of matrix language
orlanguage
matrix monolingual inSiarad
in in
language Siarad
and
Siarad corpus. the matrix
identifying
corpus.
corpus.
language of each clauses, allowed Deuchar et al. (2018) to arrive at a characterization of the Siarad
should
should
corpus
should asbe
be
be replaced
replaced
shown
replaced inby: by: 5.
by:
Figure

Figure
Figure 5.
5. 5.
Figure Quantitative
Quantitative
5.Quantitative
Quantitativedistribution
distribution of
distribution matrix
of of
matrix language
language
ofmatrix
matrix in in
languageSiarad corpus.
Siarad corpus.
inSiarad
Siarad corpus.
Figure distribution language in corpus.

TheseDespite
changes its usefulness
have nono for our research,
material impact the
ononMLF
the model is notof
conclusions without
the its critics.
paper. The One of the
authors most like
would
These
These
carefully
changes
changes
argued
have
have
critiques
nomaterial
is by
material
Auer and
impact
impact onthe
Muhamedova
the conclusionsof
conclusions ofthe
(2005), who argue
the paper.
paper.
that
The
The authors
authors
the distinction
wouldlike
would
between
like
to to
apologize
tothe
apologize
apologize for any
for
for any inconvenience
any inconvenience
inconvenience caused to
caused
caused the
to readers
the
to always by
readers
the readers these
by changes.
these
by these changes.
matrix and the embedded languages is not absolute. Auerchanges.
and Muhamedova (2005) use
sixteenth century data from Martin Luther’s dinner table conversations to show how Latin insertions
in Early New High German did not always follow the morphosyntax of the German of that period.
For example, they find that some Latin nouns following German prepositions are marked with the
case that would be expected in Latin, and not the expected German case. So in the prepositional
phrase
Languages
Languages
Languages vom
2020,2020,
2020, praecaeptore
5, 0;
5,5,
x;x;doi:
doi: ‘from the teacher’, the German preposition vom has www.mdpi.com/journal/languages
doi:10.3390/languages5040000 the dative marking of the
www.mdpi.com/journal/languages
www.mdpi.com/journal/languages
contracted definite article dem (<von dem), but the Latin noun praecaeptore is marked for the ablative
case (as would be expected after the Latin preposition de) rather than for the dative (praecaeptori).
They argue that an analogous kind of ‘mixture’ of the grammar of the two languages also occurs in
modern Kazakh/Russian code-switching data, where both languages have rich morphological systems
which are nevertheless different. For example, the use of a subordinating conjunction in Russian
may be followed by Kazakh material which is not entirely grammatical either in Kazakh or Russian.
Their conclusion is that “a neat separation between matrix and embedded language is impossible”
(Auer and Muhamedova 2005, p. 52). In fact, their examples show that a matrix language can usually
be identified, but that there is sometimes ‘leakage’, such that constructions of the matrix language
sometimes influence those of the embedded language and vice versa. Overall, though, they consider
the MLF model to be “basically correct” (Auer and Muhamedova 2005, p. 36).
Indeed, this latter view gains traction as a result of a study by Fricke and J (2016). They report
from their analysis of the Bangor Miami data that “a strong and reliable association was found between
the matrix language of a given codeswitched utterance (indexed by the language of its finite verb) and
the matrix language of the utterance that immediately preceded it”. In other words, they consider that
using a particular matrix language in one utterance will increase the likelihood of the same matrix
language being used in the next utterance. They suggest that this result “supports the psycholinguistic
validity of the MLF model” (Fricke and J 2016, p. 185).
Languages 2020, 5, 22 9 of 19

Even one of the most longstanding and ardent critics of the MLF (see e.g., MacSwan 2005) states
that “Myers-Scotton’s (1993) Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model has had a very strong influence
on the field of CS” (MacSwan 2014, p. 14). However, he considers it to be part of a ‘constraint-based’
approach, whereas he favours a lexicalist, ‘constraint-free’ approach which “will not tolerate any
grammatical device that makes explicit reference to (code)switching or language(s)” (MacSwan 2014,
p. 18). I should make clear at this point that I consider the distinction that MacSwan draws between
between ‘constraint-free’ and ‘constraint-based’ approaches to be entirely artificial, and to depend on a
specific definition of ‘constraint’. As stated at the outset of this section, the notion of grammaticality
depends on the notion of constraints (or rules) in a general sense, so all theories of the grammar of
code-switching will contain some kind of constraints. An example from MacSwan’s work is what he
refers to as the “ban on CS in pronominal subjects” (MacSwan 2014, p. 23), which he illustrates by
pointing out that a Spanish subject with an English verb is acceptable if the subject is a noun, but not if
it is a pronoun. His proposal (see Van Gelderen and MacSwan 2008) for accounting for this “ban” does
not use the word “constraint” but proposes that pronouns and lexical DPs (Determiner Phrases) use
“different checking strategies” (Van Gelderen and MacSwan 2008, p. 765) An alternative proposal for
similar facts is put forward by Jake (1994) in terms of a distinction between “content” and “system”
morphemes. Both proposals are thus dealing with a recognized ‘constraint’ which is apparent in
code-switching, but they are using different theoretical models to account for the data.
MacSwan’s lexicalist position on code-switching involves no statement of language-specific
co-occurrence relations between distinct grammatical categories in the clause or CP (Complementiser
Phrase), but relies on feature checking between related members of constituents. This approach is
illustrated in the work of Moro Quintanilla (2014), who considers how a Minimalist approach accounts
for code-switching within a DP, from a Spanish determiner to an English noun. An example of this
is provided by her in Example (8) below, in which there is a switch from the Spanish determiner Los
(‘the’ plural) to the English noun employers.
(8) Los employers toman la persona.
‘The employers take the person’ (Moro Quintanilla 2014, p. 219).
Moro Quintanilla assumes that in both Spanish and English there is a functional head,
the determiner, which selects as its complement a projection of the noun. She argues that the
determiner in Spanish contains gender and number features, whereas the determiner in English only
contains number features. For a DP with a Spanish determiner to be well-formed, the gender and
number features of the determiner must be ‘checked’ to identify matching or agreeing features on
the noun and are then deleted. She argues that because the English determiner lacks gender, it is
deficient in its agreement features and cannot therefore ‘check’ the full set of features on a following
Spanish noun. This, she argues, would cause the derivation to crash. Thus the combination of a
Spanish determiner with an English noun (e.g., los employers) is deemed to be grammatical whereas an
English determiner followed by a Spanish noun (e.g., the empleadores) would be deemed ungrammatical.
However, Grimstad et al. (2018) argue that standard assumptions regarding feature checking would
lead to the opposite result to that claimed by Moro Quintanilla, allowing mixed DPs like the empleadores
but not los employers. While aligning themselves with a Minimalist approach they reject lexicalism as
illustrated in Moro Quintanilla’s analysis, and propose instead an ‘exoskeletal’ alternative based on the
model Distributed Morphology, which favours the generation of the syntactic frame first and then the
insertion of lexical items. They show how an exoskeletal approach, illustrated with Norwegian/English
data, can allow for the generation of mixed DPs with both Norwegian and English determiners.
If applied to Spanish/English, this would account for the finding by Herring et al. (2010) that mixed
DPs consisting of an English determiner and a Spanish noun do occur as well as the reverse pattern.
Grimstad et al.’s (2018) view of the determiner in mixed DPs as part of the abstract syntactic
structure into which nouns are inserted is highly compatible with the approach of Myers-Scotton’s
MLF, where determiners are a kind of system morpheme while nouns are content morphemes.
Languages 2020, 5, 22 10 of 19

Both approaches find support in the finding by Herring et al. (2010) that there is a strong tendency in
code-switched clauses for the determiner to match the language of the inflected verb. This suggests
that a lexicalist approach of the kind outlined above will be too limited in its scope and that attention is
needed to co-occurrence restrictions applying at the clause level in whatever approach is taken.
Given that grammaticality as defined above is concerned with the rule-governed nature of language,
in our case code-switching between languages, we can compare competing models of code-switching in
terms of the extent to which they make accurate predictions about which code-switched constructions
are grammatical and which are not. The results of this kind of comparison are reported in papers
such as Parafita Couto et al. (2015) and Eppler et al. (2017). Parafita Couto et al. (2015) used the
Siarad data (see bangortalk.org.uk) in their evaluation of competing theoretical accounts of the relative
position of noun and adjective in Welsh/English bilingual speech. Switches between Welsh nouns
and English adjectives or between English nouns and Welsh adjectives may be considered ‘conflict
sites’ (cf. Poplack and Meechan 1998, p. 132) in that word order contrasts in the two languages,
with adjectives occurring before nouns in English and (normally) after nouns in Welsh. The question for
code-switching researchers is which order is grammatical when code-switching occurs between a noun
and its attributive adjective. Parafita Couto et al. (2015) noted that the MLF and Minimalism make
contrasting predictions as to the grammatical order, and they set out to test these predictions empirically.
The MLF predicts that word order will follow that of the matrix language of the clause, whereas
one Minimalist approach pursued by Cantone and MacSwan (2009) in relation to Italian-German
code-switching suggested that the language of the adjective should determine the relative word order
of adjective and noun. In order to adjudicate between the two approaches Parafita Couto et al. first
drew on naturally occurring mixed constructions found in Siarad. 137 examples of mixed constructions
containing an adjective and a noun were extracted from the data. All of these constructions occurred
in clauses where the morphosyntactic frame or matrix language was Welsh. In about two-thirds of
the data the noun was English and the adjective was Welsh, whereas in the remainder of the data
the noun was Welsh and the adjective English. Then, in a semi-experimental ‘Director-Matcher task’
(cf. Gullberg et al. 2009), a further 238 mixed nominal constructions were elicited. All mixed nominal
constructions turned out to occur in clauses with a Welsh matrix language and the most common
combination, as in the Siarad corpus, was an English noun with a Welsh adjective, with a less common
combination again being Welsh noun and English adjective. The results showed overwhelming support
for the word order following that of Welsh grammar, in line with the Welsh matrix language and with
the predictions of the MLF. Whereas the instances of an English noun followed by a Welsh adjective
were also in line with the predictions of the Minimalist approach, this was not the case for the instances
of a Welsh noun followed by an English adjective, leading to the conclusion that the MLF could account
for more of the data accurately.
(MacSwan 2014, p. 25)) argues that “it is not meaningful or informative to make empirical
comparison between theories formulated within a constraint-free approach and those formulated
within a constraint-based approach”. As an example of the work he disapproves of, he refers to Herring
et al., outlined above. However, as explained above I reject the division between the two types of theory
he is outlining, and argue that all theories should be subject to empirical testing. Indeed he agrees in
admitting that counter-evidence would stimulate Minimalist researchers to “adjust the analysis to newly
discovered data”, as indeed he points out is done by researchers using the MLF model. Lohndal (2019)
points out that the use of empirical data by generativists dates from the beginning of work on
comparative syntax in the 1980s, and suggests that work on multilingualism has adopted the same
approach. Indeed, generative linguists including MacSwan and also López (Forthcoming) do indeed
use some actual data from corpora as evidence for their approach, although they also use grammaticality
judgments as evidence of intuitions about grammatical vs. ungrammatical code-switching.
López (Forthcoming), argues that bilinguals have an ‘integrated I-language’ (cf. Chomsky 1995)
rather than two linguistic systems. López illustrates his arguments with data from code-switching
although he does not recognise that bilinguals switch between two separate systems. This is a fairly
Languages 2020, 5, 22 11 of 19

radical approach in current research on bilingualism, although the grammatical machinery used for
his analyses, that of Distributed Morphology, is also used by others (e.g., Grimstad et al. mentioned
above) who continue to recognise code-switching as a concept.
In reviewing structural approaches to code-switching, Toribio (2017) shows that we cannot rely
entirely on formal or grammatical approaches in accounting for the phenomena that occur (cf. also
Poplack 2001). Toribio points out that such approaches fail to account for “how bilinguals innovate
forms not found in the participating languages and why patterns of code-switching vary for speakers
of the same language pairing” (Toribio 2017, p. 217). For example, Vergara Wilson and Dumont (2015,
p. 448) report on the use of a bilingual compound verb construction in the New Mexico Spanish-English
bilingual corpus. This construction is illustrated in Example (9) and makes use of the Spanish verb
hacer ‘do’ in combination with an English bare verb.
9. yo hacía draw mejor
I did draw better
‘I drew better’ (Vergara Wilson and Dumont 2015, p. 448).
However, Toribio points out that this construction is not used to the same extent in all
Spanish/English bilingual communities, and suggests that there is variation in its use both within
and between communities. This takes us to the theme of the next section, variability and uniformity
in code-switching.

4. Variability and Uniformity

Variation in code-switching patterns has been approached using a range of quantitative approaches,
some focusing on its description per se and others attempting to account for the variability (or its
absence) either in terms of structural or psycholinguistic factors, or to link specific aspects of variation
to extra- or intra-linguistic factors. As we shall show, the search for patterns of variability will also
reveal where there is uniformity.
A descriptive approach is illustrated by the work described above on the quantitative distribution
of the matrix language in the Siarad corpus, and depicted in Figure 5. The overwhelming prominence
of the Welsh language in bilingual as well as monolingual clauses provides evidence for considerable
uniformity in the patterns of code-switching used by the Welsh/English bilingual community.
This degree of uniformity is not necessarily found in other communities, however, as we can see if
we compare Figure 5 above to Figure 6 below, showing the distribution of the matrix language in a
sample of data from the Spanish/English bilingual community in Miami. Blokzijl et al. (2017b) took the
clauses containing DPs that had been extracted in the study by Blokzijl et al. (2017a), and calculated
the distribution of English vs. Spanish as a matrix language in monolingual and bilingual clauses.
We found that although English occurred slightly more frequently as a matrix language than Spanish
in the sample taken as a whole, and also in monolingual (single language) clauses, Spanish occurred
as a matrix language almost twice as often as English in the bilingual clauses looked at separately.
This distribution of the matrix language in monolingual vs. bilingual clauses is very different from that
found in the Welsh/English data. We propose that the striking differences between the distribution
of the matrix language in the two bilingual communities can be at least partially accounted for by
community norms, a topic which needs further exploration in the study of code-switching (but see
Poplack 1988, Aaron 2015).
Languages 2020, 5, 22 12 of 19
Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Figure 6. Quantitative distribution of matrix language in data from Miami Spanish/English community5 .

Figure
The data6.portrayed
Quantitative distribution
in Figure 6 were of initially
matrix language
analysedinbydata from etMiami
Blokzijl Spanish/English
al. (2017a) in a quantitative
community5.
study of the use of determiners in mixed DPs in Spanish/English code-switching. The aim was to
address the question of why previous investigators (e.g., Moro Quintanilla 2014, as outlined above,
The data portrayed in Figure 6 were initially analysed by Blokzijl et al. (2017a) in a quantitative
as well as Liceras et al. 2008) have assumed a preference in Spanish/English code-switching for mixed
study of the use of determiners in mixed DPs in Spanish/English code-switching. The aim was to
DPs consisting
address of Spanish
the question of whyrather than English
previous investigatorsdeterminers,
(e.g., Moro so Quintanilla
that e.g., la 2014,
houseas (‘the house’),
outlined with a
above,
Spanish determiner and an English noun, is preferred over the casa (‘the
as well as Liceras et al. 2008) have assumed a preference in Spanish/English code-switching for mixed house’). As outlined above
Grimstad et al. (2018)
DPs consisting haverather
of Spanish argued for English
than an ‘exoskeletal’ model
determiners, which
so that would
e.g., allow
la house (‘theboth combinations,
house’), with a
but a quantitative
Spanish determiner study
and anof corpus
English datanoun,was needed in
is preferred over order to establish
the casa the facts
(‘the house’). before above
As outlined trying to
explain them. Blokzijl et al. (2017a) therefore extracted a total of 8586
Grimstad et al. (2018) have argued for an ‘exoskeletal’ model which would allow both combinations, mixed and unmixed DPs from
the
butBangor Miami corpus
a quantitative study and 3506 DPs
of corpus datafromwas aneeded
smallerincorpus
order of to Nicaraguan
establish theEnglish-based
facts before tryingcreoletoand
Spanish. All the
explain them. DPs analysed
Blokzijl appeared
et al. (2017a) thereforein clauses
extracted with finite
a total verbs,
of 8586 which
mixed andallowed
unmixed usDPs
to code
from the
matrix language
the Bangor Miamiof each
corpusclause
and containing
3506 DPs from a mixed or unmixed
a smaller corpus DP. The reasonEnglish-based
of Nicaraguan for including creole
unmixed
asand
wellSpanish.
as mixed AllDPsthein theanalysed
DPs analysis appeared
was to uphold whatwith
in clauses Labov called
finite verbs,the which
‘Principle of Accountability’,
allowed us to code
which is summarized
the matrix language of byeach
Tagliamonte (2012, p.a 10)
clause containing mixedas requiring
or unmixed “thatDP.all
Thethereason
relevantfor forms
includingin the
unmixed as well as mixed DPs in the analysis was to uphold what
subsystem of grammar that you have targeted for investigation, not simply the variant of interest, Labov called the ‘Principle of are
Accountability’, which is summarized by Tagliamonte (2012, p. 10)
included in the analysis”. The results showed that 98% of the DPs contained a determiner from the as requiring “that all the relevant
forms
same in the subsystem
language as the matrix of grammar
language. thatEnglish
you have targeted for
determiners withinvestigation,
Spanish nouns not simply the variant
did occur, although
of interest, are included in the analysis”. The results showed that
less frequently than Spanish determiners with English nouns, but always in clauses with an English 98% of the DPs contained a
determiner from the same language as the matrix language. English determiners with Spanish nouns
matrix language. Overall there were more clauses with an English matrix language, but a smaller
did occur, although less frequently than Spanish determiners with English nouns, but always in
proportion of mixed English DPs with English matrix language than mixed Spanish DPs with Spanish
clauses with an English matrix language. Overall there were more clauses with an English matrix
matrix language. In other words, when speakers are mainly speaking Spanish they are more likely to
language, but a smaller proportion of mixed English DPs with English matrix language than mixed
switch to English after the determiner than they are likely to switch in this position when speaking
Spanish DPs with Spanish matrix language. In other words, when speakers are mainly speaking
English.
SpanishThis theymay be more
are more likely
likely to be due
to switch to the after
to English prestige of English than
the determiner than to grammatical
they are likely tofactors,
switchbut
we may speculate that a community norm has been established that
in this position when speaking English. This may be more likely to be due to the prestige of English allows switching from Spanish
tothan
English
to grammatical factors, but we may speculate that a community norm has been established that at
while not favouring the reverse, from English to Spanish. Blokzijl et al. also looked
the mixed
allows and unmixed
switching DPs intoa English
from Spanish smallerwhile corpus notoffavouring
Nicaraguan English-based
the reverse, creoletoand
from English Spanish,
Spanish.
finding that out of 3506 instances, 99.7% matched the matrix language.
Blokzijl et al. also looked at the mixed and unmixed DPs in a smaller corpus of Nicaraguan English- Furthermore, in the case of the
mixed DPs, the language of the finite verb was always Nicaraguan
based creole and Spanish, finding that out of 3506 instances, 99.7% matched the matrix language. Creole English and not Spanish.
These findings,intaken
Furthermore, together,
the case of the suggest
mixed DPs, thatthethelanguage
languageofofthe determiners
finite verb in wascode-switching
always Nicaraguan is much
more
Creolerelated to the
English and speaker’s
not Spanish.choiceTheseof morphosyntactic
findings, taken frame, together, including
suggestthe thatlanguage of the finite
the language of
verb, than to the grammatical features of the determiner. The main contribution this study is to show
determiners in code-switching is much more related to the speaker’s choice of morphosyntactic
that the source
frame, includingof the language
variability ofinthethe language
finite of the
verb, than determiner
to the grammatical is not the grammar
features of the source
of the determiner.
The main contribution of this study is to show that the source of the variability in the language of the

5 Reported by Blokzijl et al. (2017b) using Miami data from bangortalk.org.

5 Reported by Blokzijl et al. (2017b) using Miami data from bangortalk.org.
Languages 2020, 5, 22 13 of 19

language, but the matrix language of the clause. There is a high degree of uniformity in the language
of the determiner once the matrix language is taken into account, and the variability which then needs
accounting for is instead the variability that we find here in the choice of the matrix language.
One of the most influential and highly respected examples of work on the varying patterns
of code-switching to be found in different bilingual communities is that by Muysken (2000) who
identifies code-switching patterns as belonging to three main types, ‘insertion’, ‘alternation’ and
‘congruent lexicalization’. These three patterns can be identified according to diagnostic features with
overlapping distributions for each type. Muysken suggested that one type may be more predominant
in some bilingual communities than others, and this idea was tested quantitatively in a study by
Deuchar et al. (2007) using data from Welsh/English, Tsou/Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese/Mandarin
Chinese bilingual communities. The results suggested that two of the communities showed a
predominantly insertional pattern, but all communities also showed evidence of a secondary pattern.
For example, the Welsh/English data showed a primary insertion pattern but a secondary pattern
indicating congruent lexicalisation.
Another, prominent approach to variation in code-switching makes use of the Labovian variationist
method (cf. Labov 1972), which is a prime method used in sociolinguistics. It was used for the first
time in code-switching research in Poplack’s seminal (1980) article on Spanish/English code-switching
by the Puerto Rican community in New York City. The variationist method assumes, with Labov,
that language is inherently variable (cf. Weinreich et al. 1968), but tries to identify the ways in which
this variability patterns, using quantitative analysis and taking account of both linguistic and social
factors. Poplack’s quantitative analysis of the Puerto Rican data showed, for example, that the most
frequently switched constituent was the sentence, while within sentences she found single nouns to
be most switched. Regarding the importance of social factors, she also used a pioneering (for those
times) method of multivariate analysis named VARBRUL 2, which showed that four extralinguistic
factors contributed to the occurrence of intraclausal code-switching: speaker sex, age of L2 acquisition,
language dominance and workplace. While the age of the speaker is an important extralinguistic
variable in many studies of monolingual speech because of what it indicates about ongoing language
change (see e.g., Bailey 2002), age of acquisition is an additional important variable in studies of
bilinguals. This is because whereas the age of acquisition of the language of a monolingual is usually
from birth onwards, bilingual acquisition can either involve simultaneous acquisition of the two
languages from birth or acquisition from birth of one language while the other language is learned
later. Poplack (1980) found that speakers who had been born in the USA or who had arrived there in
early childhood did more code-switching than those who arrived in adulthood, arguably because the
latter group acquired English later and were less ‘balanced’ in their proficiency in their two languages.
Nortier (1990), in a study of code-switching between Dutch and Moroccan Arabic, found, along
similar lines, that speakers with a high degree of proficiency in the two languages produced a relatively
large quantity of intraclausal code-switching compared to those who were less proficient. The results
of this study find a parallel in our own variationist study (Deuchar et al. 2016) of the factors influencing
quantity of code-switching by Welsh/English speakers. The analysis using Rbrul showed that one of
the most important factors was the pattern of bilingual acquisition, such that that speakers who had
acquired both Welsh and English from birth produced significantly more intraclausal code-switching
than speakers who had acquired one language from birth and the other later. The details of the results
are reproduced in Table 1, which is based on Table 8.4 in Deuchar et al. (2016, p. 229) and Table 6.3 in
Deuchar et al. (2018, p. 102).
Languages 2020, 5, 22 14 of 19

Table 1. 6 Mixed effects logistic regression predicting bilingual clauses with speaker as a random effect.

Pattern of Bilingual Number of % of Bilingual Centred Factor

Log-Odds
Acquisition
Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEWClauses Clauses Weight 14 of 19
Both Welsh and English
the age offrom
speakers 15,572 14.7 0.6 0.407
birth and the quantity of code-switching, so that the older the speaker, the less they
tended toL2code-switch.
by age four This pattern
19,006 10.3 7, which is 0.487
is shown in Figure based on Figure 8.2 of Deuchar et
−0.053
L2 at primary
al. (2016, p. 229). school 26,501 7.8 0.478 −0.087
L2 at secondary school 3710 6.6 0.485 −0.059
L2 in adulthood 2726 5.6 0.448 −0.209
Table 1. Mixed effects logistic regression predicting bilingual clauses with speaker as a random
6

effect.
Our results as summarized in Table 1 are similar to Nortier’s in that we may assume that
the earlier both languages are acquired, the higherofis the
Number proficiency
% of Bilingual in Centred
both (see discussion in
Factor
Pattern of Bilingual Acquisition Log-Odds
Deuchar et al. 2016, pp. 233–34). Linguistic factors were also taken into account in our study in that we
Clauses Clauses Weight
looked Both
to see whether
Welsh the patterns
and English for single-word
from birth insertions were
15,572 14.7the same as multiword
0.6 insertions,
0.407
and we found that they were, since the percentages of in the data from each speaker were positively
L2 by age four 19,006 10.3 0.487 −0.053
correlated (see Deuchar et al. 2016, p. 232). An additional (negative) correlation was found between
L2 at primary school 26,501 7.8 0.478 −0.087
the age of speakers and the quantity of code-switching, so that the older the speaker, the less they
L2 at secondary school 3710 6.6 0.485 −0.059
tended to code-switch. This pattern is shown in Figure 7, which is based on Figure 8.2 of Deuchar et al.
(2016, p. 229). L2 in adulthood 2726 5.6 0.448 −0.209

Figure 7. Percentage of bilingual clauses by speaker age.

Figure 7. Percentage of bilingual clauses by speaker age.
Deuchar et al. interpret the pattern shown in Figure 7 as suggesting that language use norms are
in the process
Deuchar of changing, and that
et al. interpret young people’s
the pattern shown ingreater
Figurepropensity
7 as suggestingto code-switch
that language indicates that are
use norms
in the process of changing, and that young people’s greater
code-switching is becoming more common and acceptable, at least in informal contexts. propensity to code-switch indicates that
code-switching is becoming more common and acceptable, at least in informal
In the study by Deuchar et al. (2016) we did not find that the linguistic factors examined (single vs. contexts.
multiword In insertions)
the study by Deuchar
made et al. (2016)
a difference to thewe did not
results, butfind that thefactors
linguistic linguistic factors
do seem to examined
be operating (single
in a preliminary study of the choice of the matrix language in the Spanish/English data analysed byto be
vs. multiword insertions) made a difference to the results, but linguistic factors do seem
operating
Blokzijl in a preliminary
et al. (2017b). As outlined study
above,of the choice of variability
the apparent the matrixinlanguage
the choice in of
the
theSpanish/English
language of thedata
analysed by Blokzijl et al. (2017b). As outlined above, the
determiner was in fact linked to the variable choice of the matrix language. A preliminary apparent variability in the choice
analysisof the
of the data using Rbrul indicated that the type of clause (i.e., monolingual vs. bilingual) appeared A
language of the determiner was in fact linked to the variable choice of the matrix language.
to bepreliminary analysis of
the most important the dataofusing
predictor Rbrul language,
the matrix indicated that while the type of clausevariables
extralinguistic (i.e., monolingual
(like age vs.
bilingual) appeared to be the most important predictor of the matrix
or gender) seemed not to be so important. As shown in Figure 6 above, we had found that although language, while extralinguistic
variables
English occurred (likeslightly
age or more
gender) seemed as
frequently nota matrix
to be solanguage
important. thanAsSpanish
shown in in the
Figure
sample6 above,
takenwe as had
found that although English occurred slightly more frequently as a matrix language than Spanish in
the sample taken as a whole, and also in monolingual (single language) clauses, Spanish occurred as
6 a matrix
Deuchar et al.language almost
(2018, p. 102) twice
include astooften
a guide as Englishofin
the interpretation the
this bilingual
table clauses
for those more looked
familiar at separately.
with earlier versions ofThis
multivariate
differenceanalysis
in the used in sociolinguistics.
distribution of the matrix language in monolingual vs. bilingual clauses was
significant.
While variationist studies have tended to focus on the role of internal (linguistic) and external
(extralinguistic or social) factors in influencing variation in speech, recent studies have shown that

6
Languages 2020, 5, 22 15 of 19

a whole, and also in monolingual (single language) clauses, Spanish occurred as a matrix language
almost twice as often as English in the bilingual clauses looked at separately. This difference in the
distribution of the matrix language in monolingual vs. bilingual clauses was significant.
While variationist studies have tended to focus on the role of internal (linguistic) and external
(extralinguistic or social) factors in influencing variation in speech, recent studies have shown that the
immediately preceding discourse may play a role in code-switching patterns. In the study mentioned
above by Fricke and J (2016), they considered the relation they found between the choice of the matrix
language in juxtaposed clauses to be an example of structural priming, or “speakers’ tendency to re-use
the syntactic structure of recently processed sentences” (Fricke and J 2016, p. 181). Their main finding
was that “When all variables were taken into account, the ML of the immediately preceding utterance
was a significant predictor of the ML of the target utterance . . . consistent with structural priming of
the ML” (Fricke and J 2016, p. 191). Their results show that despite the apparent matrix language
priming effect, the proportion of code-switched utterances with Spanish ML following utterances with
English ML (0.4) is higher than the proportion of code-switched utterances with English ML following
utterances with Spanish ML (0.2). They had already noted (Fricke and J 2016, p. 191) that of the 1208
code-switched utterances in their data, 62% (744) had a Spanish ML, observing that “the proportion
of English vs. Spanish ML codeswitches may be somewhat surprising given the predominance of
default-English conversations in the corpus”. This frequency of 62% is almost identical to our own of
63%, as represented in Figure 6 above. We suggest that this greater tendency to switch in clauses where
Spanish is the ML may be accounted for more in terms of community norms than by priming even
though priming may determine the choice of ML in both monolingual and bilingual clauses in the first
place. In other words, priming effects will influence the choice of English or Spanish ML (depending
on the ML in the previous discourse), but switching will then be more facilitated within clauses with
Spanish ML (and relatively inhibited within clauses with English ML) as a result of community norms.
This might be an example of community norms contributing to ‘top-down’ processes while these work
(as Fricke and Kootstra suggest) in conjunction with ‘bottom-up’ processes like priming. The influence
of community norms no doubt help account also for the fact that, in these data at least, code-switched
utterances occur far less commonly than monolingual utterances.
In most studies of variation in code-switching conducted so far, aspects of code-switching
(e.g., quantity, choice of matrix language) have been treated as the dependent variable. However,
Torres Cacoullos and Travis (2018) describe a study in which code-switching is one of the independent
variables influencing the choice of a null or overt subject pronoun (the dependent variable) in the speech
of Spanish/English bilinguals in New Mexico. In their analysis of bilingual Spanish, they extracted all
tokens of Spanish finite verbs with pronominal and unexpressed human first and third person singular
subjects. They found that while co-referential pronouns in both Spanish and English had a priming
effect on the occurrence of overt subject pronouns with the Spanish finite verbs extracted, the presence
of English in the same or preceding clause did not have an effect. However, code-switching (to English)
was found to have an effect on the opportunities for priming to occur by changing relevant features
of the immediately preceding discourse. In particular, English insertions in the preceding discourse
increased the occurrence of overt subject primes (since null subjects are less common in English than
Spanish) and overt subject primes made it more likely that subsequent Spanish subjects would also
be overt. However, the language of the overt subject prime made a difference in that the effect of an
overt Spanish prime was stronger than that of an overt English subject prime (see Torres Cacoullos and
Travis 2018, p. 193).
In our review of the studies outlined above we have demonstrated that in studying how
code-switching patterns can vary both within and between bilingual communities, we can also discover
where variation is missing and where instead we can find uniformity. Future research should help us
discover the relative role of external and internal factors as well as community norms in accounting for
these patterns.
Languages 2020, 5, 22 16 of 19

5. Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

In this paper I have focused on three issues that arise in linguistic approaches to code-switching:
(1) the distinction between borrowing and code-switching; (2) grammaticality; and (3) variability
vs. uniformity.
I have argued that a distinction between borrowing and code-switching can be drawn, but that it
should not rely on all types of linguistic integration, since the evidence suggests that other-language
items tend to follow the word order and inflections of the recipient language. Instead, the focus
should be on peripheral types of integration, such as the example of mutation in Welsh. It may be
a challenge to identify peripheral integration in other languages, but Bessett’s work has shown an
innovative way (outlined above) of coding the presence vs. absence of Spanish determiners before
English nouns according to whether they represented an English or a Spanish pattern. Where they
manifested a Spanish pattern, he concluded they were morphosyntactically integrated into Spanish.
Since Bessett also found a correlation between morphosyntactic and phonological integration, it would
be interesting to see if future studies can replicate his results in both the same and other language pairs,
thus helping us to finally conclude how useful it is to study phonological integration.
Regarding grammaticality, I have reviewed alternative approaches and have argued that their
relative value can and should be assessed by the extent to which they make accurate empirical
predictions. These predictions should be tested on corpora which are fully open to all investigators.
At the moment relatively few corpus-based studies of code-switching make their corpora fully accessible,
which hampers the assessment of the validity of results. Corpus-studies should also be complemented
by those using experimental and neuroscientific methods (see Schwieter (2015) for a review) but these
should always maximise their ecological validity by using corpora as well. Parafita Couto et al. (2015)
outlined above, is a good example of this. In reviewing the empirical validity of alternative models of
code-switching I have argued that lexicalist models (such as that described by MacSwan 2014) fail a
test of full empirical validity since they do not sufficiently take into account co-occurrence restrictions
within the clause, an approach which is central to Myers-Scotton’s MLF theory.
Finally, I have reviewed a range of approaches to investigating variability and uniformity in
code-switching. I have suggested that future research should help us discover the relative role of
external and internal factors as well as community norms in accounting for these patterns. Labov (1972)
was trying to persuade researchers to move away from the traditional focus on shared norms as invariant
and to recognize the variability of language. However, it could be argued that the revolutionary power
of his variationist model has led us to pay insufficient attention to what is nevertheless invariant, or
relatively invariant. It is to be hoped that future research will yield a more comprehensive model
which will identify uniformity more explicitly, and will be able to relate this to the development and
acquisition of community norms in both code-switching and other areas of linguistic research.

Funding: The data available at bangortalk.org.uk were collected with funding from the AHRC and ESRC of
the UK.
Acknowledgments: The author is grateful to Draško Kašćelan for his role in the editorship of this paper and the
special issue to which it is being submitted, and also to the anonymous reviewers of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
Aaron, Jessi Elana. 2015. Lone English-origin nouns in Spanish: The precedence of community norms. International
Journal of Bilingualism 19: 459–80. [CrossRef]
Auer, Peter, and Raihan Muhamedova. 2005. ’Embedded language’ and ‘matrix language’ in insertional language
mixing: Some problematic cases. Rivista Di Linguistica 17: 35–54.
Bailey, Guy. 2002. Real and apparent time. In Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Edited by Jack
K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 232–48.
Languages 2020, 5, 22 17 of 19

Bessett, Ryan Matthew. 2017a. Exploring the phonological integration of lone other-language items in the Spanish
of southern Arizona. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 23: 31–39.
Bessett, Ryan Matthew. 2017b. The Integration of Lone English Nouns into Bilingual Sonoran Spanish. Tucson:
The University of Arizona.
Blokzijl, Jeffrey, Margaret Deuchar, and M. Carmen Parafita Couto. 2017a. Determiner asymmetry in mixed
nominal constructions: The role of grammatical factors in data from Miami and Nicaragua. Languages 2: 20.
[CrossRef]
Blokzijl, Jeffrey, Margaret Deuchar, Kevin Donnelly, El Mauder, and M. Carmen Parafita Couto. 2017b. How can
determiner asymmetry in mixed nominal constructions inform linguistic theory? Paper presented at the
Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea, Zurich, Switzerland, September 10–13.
Borsley, Robert D., Maggie Tallerman, and David Willis. 2007. The Syntax of Welsh. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bullock, Barbara E. 2009. Phonetic reflexes of code-switching. In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-Switching.
Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 163–81. ISBN 978-0-521-87591-2.
Cantone, Katja F., and Jeff MacSwan. 2009. The syntax of DP-internal codeswitching. In Multidisciplinary Approaches
to Codeswitching. Edited by Ludmila Isurin, Donald Winford and Kees de Bot. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
pp. 243–78. [CrossRef]
Carter, Diana, Margaret Deuchar, Peredur Davies, and M. Carmen Parafita Couto. 2011. A systematic comparison
of factors affecting the choice of matrix language in three bilingual communities. Journal of Language Contact
4: 1–31. [CrossRef]
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Crystal, David. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, ISBN1
9781405152969. ISBN2 9781444302776. [CrossRef]
Deuchar, Margaret. 2005. Congruence and code-switching in Welsh. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8: 255–69.
[CrossRef]
Deuchar, Margaret, Pieter Muysken, and Sung-Lan Wang. 2007. Structured variation in codeswitching: Towards
an empirically based typology of bilingual speech patterns. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism 10: 298–340. [CrossRef]
Deuchar, Margaret, and Jonathan R. Stammers. 2016. English-origin verbs in Welsh: Adjudicating between two
theoretical approaches. Languages 1: 7. [CrossRef]
Deuchar, Margaret, Kevin Donnelly, and Caroline Piercy. 2016. ‘Mae pobl monolingual yn minority’: Factors
favouring the production of code-switching by Welsh/English speakers. In Sociolinguistics in Wales. Edited
by Mercedes Durham and Jonathan Morris. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 209–39.
Deuchar, Margaret, Peredur Webb-Davies, and Kevin Donnelly. 2018. Building and Using the Siarad Corpus: Bilingual
Conversations in Welsh and English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, ISBN1 9789027200112.
ISBN2 9789027264589.
Eppler, Eva Duran, Adrian Luescher, and Margaret Deuchar. 2017. Evaluating the predictions of three syntactic
frameworks for mixed determiner-noun constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13: 27–63.
[CrossRef]
Fricke, Melinda, and Kootstra Gerrit J. 2016. Primed codeswitching in spontaneous bilingual dialogue. Journal of
Memory and Language 91: 181–201. [CrossRef]
Grimstad, Maren Berg, Brita Ramsevik Riksem, Terje Lohndal, and Tor A. Åfarli. 2018. Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal
approaches to language mixing. The Linguistic Review 35: 187–218. [CrossRef]
Gullberg, Marianne, Peter Indefrey, and Pieter Muysken. 2009. Research techniques for the study of code-switching.
In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-Switching. Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida
Jacqueline Toribio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–39.
Herring, John R., Margaret Deuchar, M. Carmen Parafita Couto, and Monica Moro Quintanilla. 2010. Evaluating
predictions about codeswitched determiner-noun sequences using Spanish/English and Welsh/English data.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13: 553–73. [CrossRef]
Ihemere, Kelechukwu. 2016. In support of the Matrix Language Frame Model: Evidence from Igbo-English
intrasentential code-switching. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa 47: 105–27. [CrossRef]
Languages 2020, 5, 22 18 of 19

Jake, Janice L. 1994. Intrasentential code switching and pronouns: On the categorial status of functional elements.
Linguistics 32: 271–98. [CrossRef]
Joshi, Aravind K. 1982. Processing of sentences with intra-sentential code-switching. Paper presented at the 9th
Conference on Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czechoslovakia, July 5–10; vol. 1, pp. 145–50.
Khan, Arshad Ali, and Amina Khalid. 2018. Pashto-English codeswitching: Testing the morphosyntactic
constraints of the MLF model. Lingua 201: 78–91. [CrossRef]
Labov, Williams. 1971. The notion of ‘system’ in creole studies. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages.
Edited by Dell Hymes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 447–72.
Labov, Williams. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Liceras, Juana M., Raquel Fernández Fuertes, Susana Perales, Rocío Pérez-Tattam, and Kenton Todd Spradlin.
2008. Gender and gender agreement in bilingual native and non-native grammars: A view from child and
adult functional-lexical mixings. Lingua 118: 581–618. [CrossRef]
Lohndal, Terje. 2019. Multilingualism as the new comparative syntax. In Mapping Linguistic Data: Essays in Honour of
Liliane Haegeman. Edited by Metin Bağrıaçık, Anne Breitbarth and Karen De Clercq. Ghent: Ghent University,
pp. 171–78. Available online: https://www.haegeman.ugent.be/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Lohndal.pdf
(accessed on 17 March 2020).
López, Luis. Forthcoming. Bilingual Grammar: Toward an Integrated Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacSwan, Jeff. 2005. Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on
“modified minimalism”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8: 1–22. [CrossRef]
MacSwan, Jeff, ed. 2014. Programs and proposals in codeswitching research. In Grammatical Theory and Bilingual
Codeswitching. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 1–33.
Moro Quintanilla, Monica. 2014. The semantic interpretation and syntactic distribution of determiner phrases in
Spanish/English codeswitching. In Grammatical Theory and Bilingual Codeswitching. Edited by Jeff MacSwan.
Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 213–26.
Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching, 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2002. Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nartey, Jonas N. A. 1982. Code-switching, interference or faddism? Language use among educated Ghanians.
Anthropological Linguistics 24: 183–92.
Nortier, Jacomine. 1990. Dutch-Moroccan Arabic Code Switching. Dordrecht: Foris.
Parafita Couto, M. Carmen, Margaret Deuchar, and Marika Fusser. 2015. How do Welsh/English bilinguals deal
with conflict? Adjective-noun resolution. In Code-Switching between Structural and Sociolinguistic Perspectives.
Edited by Gerard Stell and Kofi Yakpo. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 65–84.
Pfaff, Carol W. 1979. Constraints on language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in
Spanish/English. Language 55: 291–318. [CrossRef]
Poplack, Shana. 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of
code-switching. Linguistics 18: 581–618. [CrossRef]
Poplack, Shana. 1988. Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities. In Codeswitching: Anthropological
and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Edited by Monica Heller. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 215–44. ISBN 0-899-25412-8.
Poplack, Shana. 2000. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of
code-switching. In The Bilingualism Reader. Edited by Li Wei. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 221–56.
Poplack, Shana. 2001. Code-switching (Linguistic). In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Edited by Smelser Niel and Baltes Paul. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp. 2062–65.
Poplack, Shana. 2018. Borrowing: Loanwords in the Speech Community and in the Grammar. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Poplack, Shana, and Nathalie Dion. 2012. Myths and facts about loanword development. Language Variation and
Change 24: 279–315. [CrossRef]
Poplack, Shana, and Marjory Meechan. 1998. How languages fit together in code-mixing. International Journal
of Bilingualism 2: 127–38. [CrossRef]
Poplack, Shana, David Sankoff, and Miller Christopher. 1988. The social correlates and linguistic processes of
lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26: 47–104. [CrossRef]
Languages 2020, 5, 22 19 of 19

Sebba, Mark. 2009. On the notions of congruence and convergence in code-switching. In The Cambridge Handbook
of Linguistic Code-Switching. Edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 40–47. ISBN 978-0-521-87591-2.
Stammers, Jonathan, and Margaret Deuchar. 2012. Testing the nonce borrowing hypothesis: Counter-evidence
from English-origin verbs in Welsh. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15: 630–43. [CrossRef]
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline. 2017. Structural approaches to code-switching: Research then and now. In Romance
Languages and Linguistic Theory 12: Selected Papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages
(LSRL), Campinas, Brazil. Edited by Ruth E. V. López, Juanito Ornelas de Avelar and Sonia M. L. Cyrino.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 213–33. [CrossRef]
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, and Catherine E. Travis. 2018. Bilingualism in the Community: Code-Switching and Grammars
in Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gelderen, Elly, and Jeff MacSwan. 2008. Interface conditions and code-switching: Pronouns, lexical DPs, and
checking theory. Lingua 118: 765–76. [CrossRef]
Van Hell, Janet G., Kaitlyn A. Litcofsky, and Caitlin Y. Ting. Sentential code-switching: Cognitive and neural
approaches. 2015, In The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Processing. Schwieter, John W., ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 459–82.
Vergara Wilson, Damián, and Jenny Dumont. 2015. The emergent grammar of bilinguals: The Spanish verb hacer
‘do’ with a bare English infinitive. International Journal of Bilingualism 19: 444–58. [CrossRef]
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle.
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language
change. In Directions for Historical Linguistics. Edited by Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. Austin:
University of Texas Press, pp. 97–195.

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).