Phonological Effects in Intrasentential Codeswitching ?

1. Phonological Effects in Intrasentential Codeswitching? Sonia Colina and Jeff MacSwan Arizona State University/University of Arizona and Arizona State University

2. Research Questions • How does phonology affect the syntax of codeswitching? • What are the restrictions on language mixing within the phonological component of the grammar? • Can restrictions on codeswitching be accounted for in terms of architectural (design) considerations?

3. Codeswitching in Morphophonology • We can’t switch before a bound morpheme (Poplack, 1980, 1981) *Estoy eat-iendo *Juan love-ó a Maria • (Nonce) borrowing versus word-internal switching Lonchamos con Maria [borrowing] *Lunch-amos con Maria [word-internal codeswitch] ‘Let’s have lunch with Maria’ • In fact, we can’t mix phonology within words at all. Spanish: g ---> ƒ between vowels English: o ---> ow [+round] word finally English “ago” as [aƒow] in Spanish-English is ill-formed.

4. Phrasal Affixation • English genitive -’s is a phrasal (XP) affix [Tom and Mary]’s house [the man from Nebraska]’s hat • Spanish-English (MacSwan, 2004) Su novia’s coche está nuevo ‘His girlfriend’s car is new.’ Mi cuñado’s motorcycle is in the driveway ‘My brother-in-law’s motorcycle is in the driveway.’ • Croatian-English (Hlavac, 2003) … imam, moja mamin’s sestra jet u i … sve moj tata’sfamily je sve u Zagreb … … I have, my brother’s sister is here and … all my dad’s family is all in Zagreb …

5. Codeswitching in Head Movement Contexts • Language Switching in Restructuring Contexts (Italian-French) Si è dato un regalo [Italian] Un regalo si è dato [Italian] Si è donné un cadeau [Italian-French] *Un cadeau si è donné [Italian-French] ‘A gift is given’ • Language Switching in Negation Contexts (Spanish-Nahuatl) *No nitekititoc ‘I’m not working’ Amo estoy trabajando ‘I’m not working’

6. Descriptive Generalization • Codeswitching cannot occur • word-internally • in head movement contexts • In other words: Codeswitching cannot occur internally within a head (X0), whether simple or complex. • Counter-examples? • Finnish-English case morphology • Dutch agreement suffix -e on French adjectives • Viable counter-examples stimulate further study, leading to theoretical refinements

7. The PF Disjunction Theorem (MacSwan 1999, 2000) • Goals • Rule out head-internal codeswitching without positing codeswitching-specific mechanisms. • PF Disjunction Theorem • The PF component consists of rules which must be (partially) ordered with respect to each other, and these orders vary cross-linguistically. • Codeswitching entails the union of at least two (lexically-encoded) grammars. • Ordering relations are not preserved under union. • Therefore, codeswitching within a PF component is not possible. • Heads are inputs to phonology. • PFDT is an instantiation of Full Interpretation (FI) Words (X0s) which contain objects associated with distinct phonological systems lack sensorimotor interpretations at the PF Interface.

8. Previous Studies in the Phonology/ Phonetics of Codeswitching • Recent studies of phonological aspects of codeswitching have focused on phonetic, gradient effects: • Grosjean and Miller (1994) • Voice Onset Time (VOT) measurements in French/English codeswitches. Lexical switches. • Findings: “base language” has no impact on the production of codeswitches for VOT; the shift from one language to the next is total and immediate. • Botero et al. (2004) • VOT measurements in Spanish/English codeswitches. Sentential switches. • Findings: trend towards convergence in the VOT values of voiceless stops in Spanish/English codeswitches; perseverative phonetic effects in codeswitching contexts.

9. Previous Studies in the Phonology/ Phonetics of Codeswitching • Bullock et al. (2004) • also focuses on phonetics (phonetic convergence), despite the introduction of allophonic distribution. • does not present a theoretical account of the phonological facts. • sounds under investigation are switch-internal (vs. at the point of switch). • findings: • hypothesis (English allophones may be substituted for the Spanish ones and/or vice versa) is not borne out; no allophonic substitution, no convergence at the phonological level of representation; phonetic convergence found instead. • acoustic values of [l] in codeswitched bilingual speech are closer to those of an English dark /l/ than those of monolingual Spanish, but still below the threshold level necessary to be perceived as dark. Although subjects show coda neutralization of the l/r contrast in Spanish (lambdacism), no such process was found in codeswitching into English.

10. Goals of the Present Study • Contribute to the literature on the phonology of codeswitching by examining phonological, categorical phenomena. • Determine empirically whether in mixed-language contexts there is • a “base-language effect” in the postlexical phonological component • or a sudden switch in phonological systems • Refine/reformulate the PF Disjunction Theorem using insights from Optimality Theory. • Here we report on initial efforts with 1 and 2 will not address 3 for the moment.

11. The Relevance of Optimality Theory to the Present Study • Crosslinguistic variation (language typology) is the result of language-specific rankings of universal constraints. • Two languages may have opposite rankings of the same constraints: e.g., languages with consonant epenthesis have ONSET >> DEP, but those without it have the ranking DEP >> ONSET. • Ranking paradoxes (opposite rankings of the same universal constraints) are not permitted. • Conflating phonological systems in bilingual codeswitching could result in a ranking paradox. • OT predictions: • In the case of a ranking paradox, since only one ranking is possible, there must be a sudden switch in phonology (from the “base” to the “receptor language”) at the point of switch. • When no conflicting rankings are involved, the facts could be different. A feature in the receptor language could serve as a trigger for a process in the base language.

12. Two Experiments • Experiment 1 • Intervocalic allophones of /b, d, g/ • Conflicting rankings in English and Spanish. • Switches between a Spanish trigger and an English lexical item test whether Spanish phonology persists into the English lexical item. • Experiment 2 • Voicing of syllable-final /s/ in Spanish. • No conflicting rankings involved. • Switches between an English trigger and a Spanish lexical item test whether English phonology persists into the Spanish lexical item.

13. Experiment 1: Spanish Approximants (Fricatives) • /b, d, g/ are realized as [-continuants] when following a stop or a pause (or /l/ in the case of /d/): cuando [ku9an5do] ‘when’ tengo [tego] ‘I have’ cambio [kambi9o] ‘change’ caldo [kal5do] ‘broth’ • All Spanish dialects with [+continuant] allophones of the voiced stops have a [+ continuant, -vocalic] segment in intervocalic contexts (Lipski, 1994): haba [aBa] ‘bean’ hada [aDa] ‘fairy’ haga [aa] ‘do-SUBJ.3SG’ • In English, by contrast, intervocalic allophones of /b, d, g/ are always [-continuant].

14. Relevant Constraints • AGREE (stricture): Adjacent segments must agree in degree of stricture (Díaz-Campos & Colina, 2004; Steriade, 1993) • IDENT-IO (continuant): Corresponding segments are identical with regard to their [+/- continuant] specification (i.e., [+/- continuant] specification in the output must match that of the input and vice versa). • IDENT-IO (sonorant): Corresponding segments are identical with regard to their [+/- sonorant] specification (i.e., [+/- sonorant] specification in the output must match that of the input and vice versa).

15. Other Relevant Constraints • FAITHFULNESS: Any segment present in the input must also be present in the output (MAX-IO); any segment present in the output must have a correspondent in the input (DEP-IO). • Stricture theory (cf. Steriade, 1993) • A0: maximal stricture (non-continuants, stops, nasals and laterals) • Af: medium aperture (fricatives) • AMAX: minimal stricture (approximants and vowels)

16. Constraint Ranking Differences • Spanish AGREE (stricture)>> IDENT-IO (continuant), IDENT-IO (sonorant) • English IDENT-IO (continuant), IDENT-IO (sonorant) >> AGREE (stricture) Note: this process affects only voiced obstruents in Spanish (not voiceless). An undominated constraint against voiceless approximants is responsible for the exclusion of the voiceless counterparts.

17. Tableaux Monolingual Spanish /lagala/ [laÂala] ‘the event’

18. Tableaux Monolingual English /eigoust/ [ei9gou9st] ‘a ghost’

19. Methods • Participants: 5 simultaneous Spanish-English bilinguals from Central Arizona (students at Arizona State University). • Task: Participants were asked to pronounce 27 sentences three times each in non-sequential order using Presentation, a stimulus-delivery software package, in a sound booth. • Items: Items involved codeswitches from Spanish into English (voiced stop-initial English noun at the onset of the switch, preceded by a vowel-final Spanish determiner). E.g., Hablamos de mi ghost yesterday ‘We talked about my ghost yesterday’ Hablamos de mi disk yesterday ‘We talked about my disk yesterday’ Hablamos de mi book yesterday ‘We talked about my book yesterday’

20. Methods • The sentences were recorded, transcribed and subjected to spectrographic analysis (using Praat) to determine the continuancy (stop versus approximant) of /b, d, g/. • The codeswitched samples were compared to monolingual Spanish intervocalic contexts to rule out convergence towards English in participants’ Spanish phonology.

21. Results Figure 1: Results for Spanish-English bilingual speech sample *Note: S4 excluded based on monolingual Spanish results.

22. Results Figure 2: Results for monolingual Spanish speech sample

23. Bar Graph Representation of Results for Spanish-English Bilingual Speech Sample

24. Experiment 2: /s/-voicing in Spanish • In Spanish /s/ is realized as [z] when followed by a voiced consonant desde [dezD e] ‘from’ mismo [mizmo] ‘same’ las dos [lazDos] ‘the two’ tres manos [trezmanos] ‘three hands’ tres osos [tresosos] ‘three bears’ Note: This process is postlexical and therefore not obligatory. However, the presence of at least some /s/-voicing in a codeswitching context, in particular when /s/ is followed by an English word that starts with a voiced consonant, would indicate that the feature [+voice] can serve as a trigger for the /s/ voicing, independendently of the fact that [+voice] belongs to an English lexical item.

25. Relevant Constraints • AGREE (voice): Adjacent segments must agree voicing • IDENT-IO Coda (voice): Corresponding coda segments are identical with regard to their [+/-voice] specification. (i.e., [+/-voice] specification in the output must match that of the input and viceversa). • IDENT-IO Onset (voice): Corresponding onset segments are identical with regard to their [+/-voice] specification. (i.e., [+/-voice] specification in the output must match that of the input and viceversa).

26. Constraint Ranking IDENT-IO Onset (voice) >> AGREE (voice) >> IDENT-IO Coda (voice)

27. Tableaux Monolingual Spanish /mismo/ [mizmo] ‘same’

28. Tableaux Code-switched utterance (Spanish > Eng) /mis || goust/ [mi gou9st] ‘my ghosts’

29. Methods • Participants: 5 simultaneous Spanish-English bilinguals from Central Arizona (students at Arizona State University). • Task: Participants were asked to pronounce 9 sentences three times each in non-sequential order using Presentation, a stimulus-delivery software package, in a sound booth. • Items: Items involved codeswitches from Spanish into English (voiced stop-initial English noun at the onset of the switch, preceded by a s-final Spanish determiner). E.g., Hablamos de mis ghosts yesterday ‘We talked about my ghosts yesterday’ Hablamos de mis disks yesterday ‘We talked about my disks yesterday’ Hablamos de mis books yesterday ‘We talked about my books yesterday’

30. Methods • The sentences were recorded, transcribed and subjected to spectrographic analysis (using Praat) to determine voicing of /s/. • The codeswitched samples were compared to monolingual Spanish contexts to rule out convergence towards English in participants’ Spanish phonology.

31. Results Figure 3: Results for Spanish-English bilingual speech sample

32. Results Figure 4: Results for monolingual Spanish speech sample (e.g. hablamos de)

33. Bar Graph Representation of Results for Spanish-English Bilingual Speech Sample

34. Conclusions • The presence of the relevant structural description does not always trigger application of Spanish phonology across word boundaries. • The data reveal that simultaneous Spanish-English bilinguals shift suddenly from Spanish to English phonology between word boundaries when there are conflicting rankings (/b,d,g/).

35. Conclusions • An English segment may serve as a trigger for Spanish phonology across word boundaries in a Spanish lexical item when no conflicting rankings are involved. • These results are consistent with the theory that phonologicalsystems may be switched at word boundaries but not within words (heads). The defining characteristics of the switch (sudden or not) will depend on the specific processes involved as well as the theoretical account used to explain them.

36. Further Research • Another experiment needs to be done to test the opposite directionality in /s/-voicing. In other words, is the English contrast between /s/ and /z/ affected by contact with a [+voice] C in a Spanish lexical item, E.g, price de ‘price of,’ [praisDe] or [praizDe]? • This study seeks to contribute to a model of bilingual codeswitching in which grammaticality facts are substantially explained by conditions on the syntax-phonology interface.

37. Acknowledgments • Funding • This research was funded by a grant from the National Academy of Education with funding from the Spencer Foundation. • Participants • We thank the several bilingual students at ASU who participated in the study. • Graduate Assistants • Kara McAlister and Peter Sayer assisted in this research.

38. Bibliography Botero, Ch., Barbara Bullock, Kristopher Davis, and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio. 2004. Perseverative phonetic effects in bilingual code-switching. Paper presented at the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University of Utah, March. Bullock, Barbara, Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, Kristopher Allen Davis and Christopher Botero. 2004. Phonetic convergence in bilingual Puerto Rican Spanish. In Benjamin Schmeiser, Vineeta Chand, Ann Kelleher and Angelo Rodríguez, eds. WCCFL 23 Proceedings, pp.101-103. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 89-155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, ed. Ken Hale: A life in language, pp. 1-51. Cambridge: MIT Press. Colina, Sonia and Díaz-Campos, Manuel. 2004 The interaction between faithfulness constraints and sociolinguistic variation: The acquisition of phonological variation in first language speakers. Paper presented at the 34th LSRL, Salt Lake City, March 2004. Grosjean, François and Joanne Miller. 1994. Going in and out of languages: An example of bilingual flexibility. Psychological Science 5 (4): 201-206. Hlavac, J. 2003. Second-generation speech: Lexicon, code-switching, and morpho-syntax of Croatian-Englishbilinguals. Berlin and New York: Peter Lang. Lipski, John. 1994. Latin American Spanish. Cambridge and New York: CUP.

39. Bibliography MacSwan, J. 1999. A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching. New York: Garland Press. MacSwan, J. 2000. The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from codeswitching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(1), 37-54 MacSwan, J. (2004). Code switching and linguistic theory. In T. K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Poplack, S. 1980. "Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en Español": Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18:581-618. Poplack, S. 1981. The syntactic structure and social function of code-switching. In Durán, R., ed. 1981. Latino language and communicative behavior. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Steriade, Donca. 1993. “Closure, release and nasal contours.” In Phonetics and Phonology, MarieHuffman and Rena Krakow (eds), 401-470. San Diego, New York: Academic Press.