Contact phenomena such as codeswitching and linguistic borrowing occur quite normally in situations of intense language contact. Some researchers have proposed relationships between the two suggesting causal links, and that codeswitching, as an assumed mechanism of change (Myers-Scotton, 2002, p. 104; Thomason, 2001, p. 131), in some way causes or instigates the kinds of lexical and structural borrowing that lead to long-term language change. This paper attempts to make clear that, while the two phenomena may have links, they are not causal in nature. Both emanate from similar underlying social conditions that constitute predispositions to particular outcomes. Proximate causes for each must lie elsewhere, in mental responses to the triggering effects of particular environmental stimuli. They represent consequences of the dynamic interaction of underlying social conditions and consequent psychological states (Grosjean, 2001). One conclusion is that contact phenomena are behaviors produced by speakers as they interact with environmental factors such as linguistic input (e.g., mixed input from other speakers). Motivations for long-term change may be as simple as an unconscious desire of one community to copy the speech of another socially and, therefore, linguistically dominant group, the dwindling availability of viable alternatives (via shift), or a combination of the two.
Aitchison, J. (2001). Language change: Progress or decay?Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Bakker, P. (1997). A Language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
Bakker, P. (2000). Rapid language change: Creolization, language intertwining, convergence. In C. Renfrew, A. McMahon & L. Trask (Eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics, Vol. 2 (pp. 585 -620). Cambridge, U.K.: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research (Oxbow Books).
4.
Campbell, L., & M. C., Muntzel (1989). The structural consequences of language death . In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death (pp . 197-210). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press .
5.
Clark, E.V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Dorian, N.C. (1989). Introduction. In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death (pp.1-10). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Dorian, N.C. (1993). Internally and externally motivated change in language contact settings: Doubts about dichotomy. In C. Jones (Ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives (pp.131-155). London and New York: Longman .
8.
Field, F. (1994). Caught in the middle: The case of Pocho and the Mixed Language Continuum. General Linguistics, 34 (2), 85-105. Binghamton, NY : Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, State University of New York.
9.
Field, F. (2002). Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
10.
Field, F. (forthcoming). Chicano-Latino bilingualism in the U.S. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
11.
Gal, S. ( 1989). Lexical innovation and loss: The use and value of restricted Hungarian. In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death (pp. 313-331). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Grosjean, F. (1995). A psycholinguistic approach to codeswitching: The recognition of guest words by bilinguals. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on codeswitching (pp. 259-275). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press .
14.
Grosjean, F. (1997a). Processing mixed language: Issues, findings, and models. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.225-254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
Grosjean, F. (1997b). The bilingual individual. Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 2, 163-191.
16.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In J. L. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp.1-22). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
17.
Gumperz, J. J. (Ed.). (1982). Language and social identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210-231.
19.
Hawkins, J.A. (1983). Word order universals. Philadelphia , PA: John Benjamins.
20.
Hill, J.H., & Hill, K. (1986). Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of syncretic language in Central Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
21.
Hoffmann, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. New York, NY: Longman.
22.
Jake, J.L. (1998). Constructing interlanguage: Building a composite matrix language. Linguistics, 36, 333-382.
23.
Johanson, L. (1992). Strukturelle Faktoren in tuerkischen Sprachkontakten . Stuttgart, Germany: F. Steiner .
24.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
25.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition . Applied Linguistics, 2, 141-176.
26.
Matras, Y. (2000). How predictable is contact-induced change in grammar? In C. Renfrew, A. McMahon & L. Trask (Eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics, Vol. 2 (pp.563-583). Cambridge, U.K.: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research (Oxbow Books).
27.
Mithun, M. (1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 60, 847-894.
28.
Mithun, M. (1989). The incipient obsolescence of polysynthesis: Cayuga in Ontario and Oklahoma. In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death (pp.243-257). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Mufwene, S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press .
31.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
Penfield, J., & Ornstein-Galicia, J.L. (1985). Chicano English: An ethnic contact dialect. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
34.
Poulisse, N. (1997). Language production in bilinguals. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35.
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. 2nd edition. [Language in Society 13.] Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
36.
Thomason, S.G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
37.
Thomason, S.G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics . Berkeley: University of California Press.
38.
Weinreich, U. (1953) (reprinted in 1968). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.
