This paper argues for a cognitive motivation behind the nonseparation of the systems of discourse marking available to bilinguals. It produces evidence that bilingual speakers, in an unconscious effort to reduce the mental effort which is necessary to monitor and direct the hearer's responses and reactions to the speaker's utterances, can simplify monitoring -and- directing operations by eliminating the language-specific options available to them, thereby automaticizing the choice of expressions. This cognitive motivation, I argue, is so strong that it will at times override the social and communicative constraints on the discourse, leading to counterstrategic, unintentional choices or slips. It is suggested that Fusion, as the phenomenon is defined, is responsible for a type of bilingual discourse marking which, if extralinguistic factors permit, may lead to language change. Fusion figures in a function-based model of language contact phenomena alongside Integration, Differentiation, and Convergence, and the position of other approaches to bilingual discourse markers is examined in the light of this model.
Anders, K. (1993). Einflüsse der russischen Sprache bei deutschsprachigen Aussiedlern. (Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit,44). Hamburg : Germanisches Seminar.
2.
Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam : Benjamins.
3.
Azuma, S. (1993). The frame-content hypothesis in speech production: Evidence from intrasentential codeswitching. Linguistics, 31, 1071-1093.
4.
Bentahila, A., & Davies, E.E. (1995). Patterns of codeswitching and patterns of language contact. Lingua, 96, 75-93.
5.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1986). Linguistic constraints on intrasentential codeswitching: A study of Spanish/Hebre bilingualism. Language in Society , 15, 313-348.
6.
Chyet, M. (1995). Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish: An interdisciplinary consideration of their influence on each other. In S. Izre'el & R. Drory(Eds.), Language and culture in the Near East (Israel Oriental Studies XV) . (pp. 219-252). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
7.
De Rooij, V.A. (1996). Cohesion through contrast: Discourse structure in Shaba swahili/French conversations . Amsterdam: IFOTT.
8.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.
9.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge ,U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Harris, A., & Campbell, L. (1995).Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Holzinger, D. (1993). Das Rómanes: Grammatik und Diskursanalyze der Sprache der Sinte. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
12.
Joseph, B. (1983). The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Li Wei & Milroy, L. (1995). Conversational codeswitching in a Chinese community in Britain: A sequential analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 281-299.
14.
Maschler, Y. (1994). Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society, 23, 325-366.
15.
Maschler, Y. (1997). Emergent bilingual grammar: The case of contrast . Journal of Pragmatics, 28,279-313.
16.
Maschler, Y. (1998). On the transition from codeswitching to a mixed code. In P. Auer(Ed.), Codeswitching in conversation. Languages, interaction and identity(pp.125-149). London: Routledge.
17.
Masica, C.P.( 1976). Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
18.
Matras, Y. (1996). Prozedurale Fusion: Grammatische Interferenzschichten im Romanes. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung49(1), 60-78.
19.
Matras, Y. (1998). Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics, 36, 281-331.
20.
Mithun, M. (1988). The grammaticisation of coordination. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson(Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp.331-359). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
21.
Moravcsik, E. (1978). Universals of language contact. In J. H. Greenberg(Ed.), Universals of human language(pp.94-122). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
22.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: Toward a typology of codeswitching. Linguistics , 18, 581-618.
23.
Poplack, S., Sankoff, D., & Miller, C. (1988). The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26, 47-104.
24.
Reershemius, G. (1997). Biographisches Erzählen auf Jiddisch. Grammatische und diskursanalytische Untersuchungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
25.
Rehbein, J. (1979). Sprechhandlungsaugmente.Zur Organization der Hörersteuerung .In H. Weydt (Ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache(pp.58-74). Berlin: De Gruyter.
26.
Salmons, J. (1990). Bilingual discourse marking: Codeswitching,borrowing,and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics , 28, 453-480.
27.
Sandfeld, K. (1930[1968]). Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Klincksieck .
28.
Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change , 9, 191-217.
29.
Savić, J.M. (1995). Structural convergence and language change: Evidence from Serbian/English codeswitching. Language in Society, 24, 475-492.
30.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge,U.K .: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
32.
Slobin, D.I. (1996). From "thought and language"to "thinking for speaking ."In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson(Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Stolz, C., & Stolz, T. (1996).Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika. Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt(HispanoindianaII). Sprach-typologieund Universalienforschung ,49(1), 86-123.
34.
Thomason, S.G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics . Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
Weinreich, U. (1953[1968]). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.
