Using the MLF model to identify convergence in the speech of Welsh-English bilinguals Peredur Davies & Margaret Deuchar (University of Wales, Bangor) 2 nd June 2007, Hamburg

Outline of talk Research aims Convergence Theoretical model Previous research Methodology and data Results Analysis Conclusions

Research aims Studying language change in Welsh Using a theoretical model of code- switching to identify possible sites of convergence in Welsh/English bilingual data Ascertaining the usefulness of this method and exploring possible sites of convergence not highlighted by the model

Convergence A contact-induced process of change The “enhancement of inherent structural similarities found between two systems” (Bullock & Toribio, 2004) Convergent structures “already present, but less prominent” (Thomason, 2001) than in the language before convergence occurred

Differences between English and Welsh SVO English: SVO Siôn caught the ball SVOSVO VSO Welsh: VSO Daliodd Siôny bêl VSOVSO Adjective+Noun English: Adjective+Noun Redwine AdjN Noun+Adjective Welsh: Noun+Adjective Gwin coch NAdj

Similarities between English and Welsh But Welsh also makes some use of SVO order, e.g. for emphasis: Fi ddaliodd y bêl SVOSVO “I caught the ball” … and some adjectives precede the noun, e.g.: henddyn AdjN “old man”

Convergence in Welsh? Welsh seems to be extending the use of certain word orders from contact with English This results in some unexpected word orders We shall apply the MLF model to data to identify where word order does not match subject-verb agreement as expected, or where there is inherent word order discrepancy within a clause

Methodology: the Matrix Language Frame model Proposed by Myers-Scotton (1993, 2002 etc.), based on earlier ideas, e.g. Joshi (1985) Two principles identify the Matrix Language (ML) for any given clause: Morpheme Order Principle (MOP) S/V (finite only) and/or head-modifier order System Morpheme Principle (SMP) Subject/Verb agreement

Previous work: Deuchar (2006) Applied MLF to 163 Welsh/English bilingual clauses to analyse “classic code-switching” patterns 99.39% clauses had an identifiable ML “very low frequency of problematic data” (Deuchar 2006; p. 2009) Only 1 clause where the MLF could not be applied

How we apply the principles For a clause, if both principles indicate the same language, that is the ML; e.g. Mae o wneud rhywbeth be. 3S.PRES3SM do. NONFIN something “He’s doing something” MOP:Verb ( mae ) before Subject ( o ) SMP:morphology of S and V agree = ML is identifiable (Welsh)

Unidentifiable ML Required to identify ML of a given clause: Finite verb with subject, or NP with head and modifier Insufficient material results in that clause having an Unidentifiable ML: Verbless (“yeah”, “mm”, etc.) Non-finite Finite but no visible Subject

Dichotomous Matrix Language Sometimes one or both of the principles fails to identify the ML in a clause 2 languages providing structural information Manifests as word order discrepancy, e.g. Ddaruni gyfweld […] am happen. PAST1PL interview. NONFIN for ddeg awr assistant tenhourassistant “We interviewed for a ten-hour assistant” Welsh V/S order but English head/modifier order (with morphemes from both languages) We call this a Dichotomous ML

Our data Bangor AHRC project Analysing 2 transcripts of conversations: (A) two men in 20s (B) woman in 30s with woman in 50s 55’22” recorded speech (1,808 clausal units) The MLF model applied to all clausal units— monolingual and bilingual Two main aims: 1) See if frequency of clausal units with identifiable ML is similar to previous study 2) Analyse Dichotomous clausal units for signs of convergence

Results: Matrix Language distribution (all clausal units)

Results: Matrix Language distribution (clausal units with verb) 62.44% of all clausal units have a verb

Results: Matrix Language distribution (finite clausal units) 48.29% of all clausal units have a finite verb

Discussion of results ML identifiable in 56.19% of all clausal units 80.24% of clausal units with verbs 99.89% of finite clausal units Very similar findings to Deuchar (2006): high rate of ML identifiability In general, quite easy to apply MLF model— —but this is bad news for identifying convergence!

Dichotomous clauses in the data An anomalous head/modifier construction: Mi oedd drws-nesa # pobl yn wneud sloe gin PRT was door-next people PRT make sloe gin “The next-door people [=neighbours] made sloe gin” This is a NP+NP modifier/head construction, where drws-nesa modifies the head, pobl Order of NP+NP is English (cf. next-door people) but with Welsh morphemes However, within the first NP (drws-nesa), the order is head+modifier = Welsh Thus no one language supplies word order, and so the MOP cannot be applied

Interpreting this Dichotomy Is drws-nesa pobl a sign of Welsh order converging onto English? Other N+Adj constructions in the data follow the expected order for the languages (and the MLF) The sole occurrence of this phenomenon suggests it may be idiosyncratic Application of the method to a larger sample may yield more examples of this Dichotomy

Convergence not highlighted by the model There are some clausal units, which are Unidentifiable ML according to the model, which yet seem to show convergence Common ellipsis of finite auxiliary, resulting in a clause-initial Subject (paralleling English?) NB: No identifiable ML because they lack a finite verb to show agreement or S/V order

Examples of auxiliary ellipsis Ti ’n jocian! You PRT joke. NONFIN SVSV “You’re joking!” Compare with ‘full’ (unellipted) form: Wyt ti’njocian! be. 2S.PRES2SPRT joke. NONFIN AuxSV

Ellipted versus unellipted forms 64 out of 67 (95.5%) examples of constructions using the 2 nd singular pronoun ti ellipt the finite verb All non-ellipted examples are interrogatives The 2 younger speakers (20s) ellipt 98.2% (average) of the time The 2 elder speakers (30s and 50s) ellipt 88.5% (average) of the time

Future research Analysis of a larger corpus will demonstrate the frequency of this construction and of other potentially convergent constructions Consider evidence for possible convergence of Welsh VS → English SV

Conclusions The MLF model shows that, in a larger sample than that studied in Deuchar (2006), a ML is still identifiable in most cases The method does identify one convergent clausal unit in the sample, but fails to identify other forms of convergence Further research will help show the extent of convergence in Welsh towards English

Diolch yn fawr!Thank you! Diolch yn fawr! Thank you! © 2007