This paper investigates the gender assignment strategies employed when genderless Georgian nouns are inserted into gendered Tsova-Tush utterances. We explore the linguistic and extra-linguistic factors motivating the strategies, and compare how these code-switches behave in relation to loans.
Design/methodology/approach:
Taking a broadly usage-based approach, we collected three types of data: (a) naturalistic corpus data; (b) semi-naturalistic production data from a forced-switch director–matcher (DM) task; and (c) a three-response forced-choice acceptability judgement task (AJT).
Data and analysis:
The responses from the DM task (n = 12) and AJT acceptability (n = 12) were analysed using descriptive (Chi-square) and inferential (log-linear) statistics. The corpus data are described qualitatively.
Findings/conclusions:
Both the gender of the Tsova-Tush translation equivalent (TE) and the Georgian phonology of the code-switched noun were significantly related to the response, with the TE being the stronger determinant of the two. Only marginal evidence for a default strategy was found. Production responses were found to be more consistent than comprehension responses, with more frequent lexemes displaying higher inter-participant consistency in production.
Originality:
Tsova-Tush, an endangered Nakh–Daghestanian language with five genders marked by prefixes, offers much-needed diversification within the code-switching literature concerning grammatical gender. This complexity also raises new questions regarding the notion of default in mixed nominal constructions.
Significance/implications:
Our findings support the prediction that first language speakers of a gendered language prefer a TE strategy, but contradict a relationship between default strategy and language dominance. Phonological criteria display a stronger role in gender assignment than previously found. Frequency and entrenchment of gender–noun pairings partially explain inter-speaker and inter-stimulus variation and consistency, providing a plausible pathway from code-switches to borrowings.
Limitations:
An unavoidable limitation is the sample size, reflecting the small speaker population. We strongly advocate for similar research in other language pairs in the Caucasus where gender systems feature prominently.
BackusA. (2005). Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another?International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(3-4), 307–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090030101
3.
BackusA. (2015). A usage-based approach to code-switching: The need for reconciling structure and function. In StellG.YakpoK. (Eds.), Code-switching between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 19–38). Walter de Gruyter.
4.
BalamO. (2016). Semantic categories and gender assignment in contact Spanish: Type of code-switching and its relevance to linguistic outcomes. Journal of Language Contact, 9, 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-00903001
5.
BalamO.Parafita CoutoM. C. (2019). Adjectives in Spanish/English code-switching. Spanish in Context, 16(2), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00034.bal
6.
Beatty-MartínezA.Valdés KroffJ.DussiasP. (2018). From the field to the lab: A converging methods approach to the study of codeswitching. Languages, 3(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages3020019
7.
BellamyK. (2012). Effects of language on analogue numeracy: Evidence from English and Georgian [Unpublished MA thesis]. Leiden University.
8.
BellamyK.Parafita CoutoM. C. (2022). Gender assignment strategies in mixed nou phrases: State of the art. In AyounD. (Eds.), The Acquisition of Gender: Crosslinguistic Perspectives, [Studies in Bilingualism 63], (pp. 13–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9.
BellamyK.Parafita CoutoM. C.Stadthagen-GonzalezH. (2018). Investigating gender assignment strategies in mixed Purepecha–Spanish nominal constructions. Languages, 3(3), 28. Special Issue “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Code-Switching.
10.
BerikashviliS. (2016). Morphological integration of Russian and Turkish nouns in Pontic Greek. Language Typology and Universals, 69(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0012
11.
BieringsE.Parafita CoutoM. C.PedroP. M. (2019). Contrasting code-switching theories: Insights from Kaqchiqel-Spanish code-switched nominal constructions. Proceedings of Form and Analysis in Mayan Linguistics 5 (FAMLi5). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6m86k80j.
12.
BlokzijlJ.DeucharM.Parafita CoutoM. C. (2017). Determiner asymmetry in mixed nominal constructions: The role of grammatical factors in data from Miami and Nicaragua. Languages, 2(4), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages2040020
13.
CantoneK. F.MüllerN. (2008). Un nase or una nase? What gender marking within switched DPs reveals about the architecture of the bilingual language faculty. Lingua, 118, 810–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.007
ChrelashviliK. (2002). c’ova-tušuri ena [the Tsova-Tush language]. TSU gamomcemloba.
16.
ChumakinaM.CorbettG. G. (2015). Gender number marking in Archi: Small is complex. In BaermanM.BrownD.CorbettG. G. (Eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity (pp. 93–116). Oxford University Press.
17.
ComrieB.PolinskyM. (1999). Some observations on class categorization in Tsez. In van den BergH. (Ed.), Studies in Caucasian linguistics: Selected papers of the eighth Caucasian colloquium (pp. 125–139). CNWS.
18.
CorbettG. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge University Press.
19.
CorbettG. G.FraserN. M. (2000). Gender assignment: A typology and a model. In SenftG. (Ed.), Systems of nominal classification, language, culture and cognition (pp. 293–325). Cambridge University Press.
20.
DelgadoR. (2018). The familiar and the strange: Gender assignment in Spanish/English mixed DPs. In LópezL. (Ed.), Code-switching – experimental answers to theoretical questions: In honor of Kay González-Vilbazo (pp. 39–62). John Benjamins.
21.
DesherievJ. D. (1953). Batsbijskij jazyk. Akademia Nauk SSSR.
22.
DeucharM. (2012). Code-switching. In ChapelleC. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 657–664). Wiley.
23.
DeucharM.DaviesP.DonnellyK. (2018). Building and using the Siarad corpus: Bilingual conversations in Welsh and English. John Benjamins.
24.
ForkerD. (2016). Gender in Hinuq and other Nakh–Daghestanian languages. International Journal of Language and Culture, 3(1), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.3.1.05for
FullerJ. M.LehnertH. (2000). Noun phrase structure in German–English codeswitching: Variation in gender assignment and article use. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(3), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040030601
28.
Gardner-ChlorosP. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge University Press.
29.
GigashviliK. (2016). k’odis gadrtva da misi st’rukt’urul-punkciuri maxasiateblebi c’ovatušur-kartuli bilingvuri disk’ursis mixedvit [code-switching and its structural-functional features according to Tsovatush–Georgian bilingual discourse]. Saari.
30.
GippertJ. (2008). Endangered Caucasian languages in Georgia. In HarrisonD. K.RoodD. S.DwyerA. (Eds.), Lessons from documented endangered languages (pp. 159–194). John Benjamins.
31.
González-VilbazoK. (2005). Die Syntax des code-switching [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. University of Cologne.
32.
GullbergM.MuyskenP. C.IndefreyP. (2009). Research techniques for the study of code-switching. In BullockB. E.ToribioA. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook on linguistic code-switching (pp. 21–39). Cambridge University Press.
33.
HaukB.HarrisA. C. (forthcoming). Batsbi. In KoryakovY.LanderT.Maisak. (Eds.), The Caucasian languages: An international handbook. De Gruyter Mouton.
34.
HeineB. (1968). Loan-words in Togo remnant languages. Journal of African Languages, 7(2), 130–139.
35.
HockettC. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. Macmillan.
36.
HoliskyD. A.GaguaR. (1994). Tsova-Tush (batsbi). In SmeetsR. (Ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus The North East Caucasian languages, Part 2 presenting the three Nakh languages and six minor Lezgian languages (Vol. 4, pp. 148–212). Caravan Books.
Karmiloff SmithA. (1979). A functional approach to child language: A study of determiners and reference. Cambridge University Press.
40.
KlassenR. (2016). The representation of asymmetric grammatical gender systems in the bilingual mental lexicon. Probus, 28(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2016-0002
41.
KrólikowskaM. A.BieringsE.Beatty-MartínezA. L.Navarro-TorresC.DussiasP. E.Parafita CoutoM. C. (2019, January9–11). Gender assignment strategies within the bilingual determiner phrase: four Spanish–English communities examined. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference on Bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone World (BHL), Leiden, The Netherlands.
42.
LeisiőL. (2001). Morphosyntactic convergence and integration in Finland Russian. PhD dissertation, University of Tampere, Tampere.
43.
LicerasJ. M.Fernández FuertesR.PeralesS.Pérez-TattamR.SpradlinK. T. (2008). Gender and gender agreement in bilingual native and non-native grammars: A view from child and adult functional–lexical mixings. Lingua, 118, 827–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.006
44.
LópezL. (2020). Bilingual grammar: Toward an integrated model. Cambridge University Press.
45.
MacSwanJ. (2000). The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 3(1), 37–54.
46.
MatsievA. G. (1961). Čečensko-russkij slovar’ [Chechen–Russian dictionary]. Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo innostrannyx i nacional’nyx slovarej.
Montes-AlcalaC.Lapidus ShinN. (2011). Las keys versus el key: Feminine gender assignment in mixed-language texts. Spanish in Context, 8(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.8.1.06mon
49.
Myers-ScottonC. (1993). Social motivations for code-switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford University Press.
50.
Myers-ScottonC. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford University Press.
51.
NicholsJ. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. The University of Chicago Press.
52.
NicholsJ. (2011). Ingush grammar. University of California Press.
53.
OtheguyR.LapidusN. (2003). An adaptive approach to noun gender in New York contact Spanish. In Núñez-CedeñoR.LópezL.CameronR. (Eds.), A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use: Selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Chicago, 19–22 April 2001 (pp. 209–229). John Benjamins.
54.
Parafita CoutoM. C.MunarrizA.EpeldeI.DeucharM.OyharçabalB. (2015). Gender conflict resolution in Spanish–Basque mixed DPs. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 18(2), 304–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891400011X
55.
PensalfiniR.MeakinsF. (2019). Gender lender: Noun borrowings between Jingulu and Mudburra in northern Australia. Journal of Language Contact, 12, 440–478. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-01202007
56.
PolinskyM.van EverbroeckE. (2003). Development of gender classifications: Modeling the historical change from Latin to French. Language, 79(2), 356–390. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0131
57.
PoplackS. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18(7–8), 581–618. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1980.18.7-8.581
SchiefnerA. (1856). Versuch über die Thusch-Sprache. [essay on the tush language]. Eggers et Comp.
62.
StolzC. (2008). Loan word gender: A case of romancisation in standard German and related enclave varieties. In StolzT.BakkerD.PalomoR. Salas (Eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on romancisation processes (pp. 399–440). Mouton de Gruyter.
63.
StolzC. (2009). A different kind of gender problem: Maltese loanword gender from a typological perspective. In ComrieB.FabriR.HumeE.MisfudM.StolzT.VanhoveM. (Eds.), Introducing Maltese Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 1st International Conference on Maltese Linguistics, Bremen, 18–20 October, 2007 (pp. 322–353). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
ThomasJ. A.SayahiL. (2012). A quantitative analysis of code-switching in the Arabic–Romance kharjas. Journal of Language Contact, 5, 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1163/187740912X639238
67.
ThomasonS. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
68.
Torres CacoullosR.TravisC. E. (2018). Bilingualism in the Community: Code-switching and Grammars in Contact. Cambridge University Press.
69.
Valdés KroffJ. R. (2016). Mixed NPs in Spanish–English bilingual speech: Using a corpus-based approach to inform models of sentence processing. In TamargoR. E. GuzzardoMazakC. M.CoutoM. C. Parafita (Eds.), Spanish–English code-switching in the Caribbean and the US (pp. 281–300). John Benjamins.
70.
Violin-WigentA. (2006). Gender assignment to nouns codeswitched into French: Observations and explanations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(3), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069060100030101
71.
WeinreichU. (1953). Languages in contact. Mouton.
72.
Wichers SchreurJ. (2021). Nominal borrowings in Tsova-Tush (Nakh–Daghestanian, Georgia) and their gender assignment. In GrenobleL.ForkerD. (Eds.), Language contact in the territory of the former Soviet Union (pp. 15–33). John Benjamins.
73.
ZubinD. A.KöpckeK.-M. (1986). Gender and folk taxonomy: The indexical relation between grammatical and lexical categorization. In: CraigC. (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization: Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, Eugene, Oregon, October 1983 (pp. 139–180). John Benjamins.
