Code-switching

Table Of Contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• About the author(s)/editor(s)
• About the book
• This eBook can be cited
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• Table of contents
• List of tables and figures
• List of abbreviations
• 0. Introduction
• 0.1. Aim of the project
• 0.2. Motives
• 0.3. Approach
• 1. Language acquisition and bilingualism
• 1.1. Describing the phenomenon of bilingualism
• 1.2. Monolingual vs. bilingual acquisition
• 1.2.1. Monolingual acquisition
• 1.2.2. Bilingual acquisition
• 1.3. Bilingualism
• 1.3.1. Definitions and descriptions
• 1.3.2. Types of bilingualism
• 1.3.2.1. Balanced bilingualism
• 1.3.2.2. Semilingualism
• 2. Code-switching (CS)
• 2.1. Defining the term
• 2.2. Code-switching vs. code-mixing and other related phenomena
• 2.2.1. Code mixing
• 2.2.2. Borrowing
• 2.2.3. Interference
• 2.2.4. Transfer
• 2.3. Terminology
• 2.4. Categorization of CS
• 2.4.1. Types of CS
• 2.4.2. Processes of intrasentnetial CS
• 3. Linguistic factors on CS
• 3.1. Code-switching is not random
• 3.2. Constraints on CS
• 3.2.1. Particular grammatical constraints
• 3.2.1.1. Mahootian (1996)
• 3.2.1.2. Timm (1975)
• 3.2.2. General constraints
• 3.2.2.1. The free morpheme constraint
• 3.2.2.2. The equivalence constraint
• 3.3. Theoretical model of intrasentential CS
• 3.3.1. The Matrix Language Model (ML)
• 3.3.1.1. Early accounts of the Matrix Language Model
• 3.3.1.1.1. Joshi: Matrix Language Model (ML)
• 3.3.1.1.1.1. Closed class vs. open class items
• 3.3.1.1.1.2. Constraints on closed class items
• 3.3.1.2. Base language vs. embedded language
• 3.3.2. Myers-Scotton: Matrix Language Frame Model (MLF)
• 3.3.2.1. Defining the Matrix Language and the Embedded Language
• 3.3.2.2. Types of constituents of the MLF Model
• 3.3.2.3. Content morphemes vs. system morphemes
• 3.4. Lexical development of bilingual children
• 4. Functional factors on CS
• 4.1. Situational vs. metaphorical switching
• 4.2. ‘We code’ vs. ‘they code’ opposition
• 4.3. The Markedness model
• 5. Speech community
• 5.1. Use of the term
• 5.2. Definitions of speech community
• 6. The Study
• 6.1. The fieldwork: Kurdish immigrant community
• 6.1.1. An asylum community
• 6.1.2. The Kurdish speech community
• 6.2. The languages of this study
• 6.2.1. Inflectional morphemes
• 6.2.1.1. Noun inflection / Declension
• 6.2.1.1.1. Noun inflection in Kurdish
• 6.2.1.1.1.1. Definition
• 6.2.1.1.1.2. Number
• 6.2.1.1.2. Personal pronoun inflection
• 6.2.1.1.2.1. Personal pronouns
• 6.2.1.1.3. Nouns with pronominal suffixes
• 6.2.1.1.2. Noun Inflection in German
• 6.2.1.2. Verb inflection / Conjugation
• 6.2.1.2.1. Verb inflection in Kurdish
• 6.2.1.2.2. Verb inflection in German
• 6.2.2. Negation
• 6.2.3. Phrasal structure in Kurdish
• 6.2.3.1. Nominal phrases
• 6.2.3.2. Verbal phrase
• 6.2.3.2.1. Verbal phrases with the Kurdish operator krdn
• 6.2.3.3. Prepositional phrase
• 6.2.4. Clause word order
• 6.2.5. Other phenomena
• 6.2.5.1. Pro-drop / Null-subject parameter
• 6.2.5.2. Case morphology
• 6.2.5.3. Gender distinction
• 7. Subjects and recordings
• 7.1. Method of observation
• 7.2. Subjects
• 7.3. Recordings
• 8. Kurdish-German intrasentential CS: data and analysis
• 8.1. What is not accounted as CS
• 8.2. The data
• 8.3. Data analysis
• 8.3.1. Categories switched
• 8.3.1.1. Noun
• 8.3.1.2. Verb
• 8.3.1.3. Adverb
• 8.3.1.4. Preposition
• 8.3.2. Affixation of Kurdish morphemes to German lexemes
• 8.3.2.1. German noun plus Kurdish suffixes
• 8.3.2.2. Kurdish-German compound verbs
• 8.3.3. Compound verbs in the CS literature
• 8.3.4. What is special about German-Kurdish compound verbs?
• 8.3.5. Summary
• 9. Constraints on Kurdish-German CS data
• 9.1. Universal constraints
• 9.1.1. The free morpheme constraint
• 9.1.2. The equivalence constraint
• 9.2. The closed class constraint
• 9.3. Applying Myers-Scotton’s MLF model to the data
• 9.3.1. Identifying the Matrix Language (ML) in the data
• 9.3.1.1. The frequency counting criterion
• 9.3.1.2. Language proficiency
• 9.3.2. Separating content and system morphemes
• 9.3.3. The Matrix Language hypothesis
• 9.3.4. The dominant-language hypothesis (Petersen 1988)
• 9.3.5. Criterion for identifying the ML in the data
• 9.3.6. Summary of linguistic constraints on Kurdish-German CS
• 10. Functional factors on Kurdish-German CS
• 10.1. Data classification
• 10.2. CS indexing rejection and anger
• 10.3. Home language
• 10.4. ‘Children code’ versus ‘parents code’
• 10.5. The unmarked codes of home interaction
• 11. Conclusion
• 12. Bibliography
• Internet Sources
• 13. Appendix
• 13.1. Appendix 1
• 13.2. Appendix 2