Are there syntactic constraints on code‐mixing?

TLDR

The study maintains that factors such as degree of multilinguality, who speaks what variety of language to whom, when, and for what reason are crucial parameters in the formulation of an adequate theory of code‑switching and code‑mixing. The study critically reviews syntactic constraints on code‑mixing and proposes integrating structural, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic data to better understand the phenomenon. The authors review existing syntactic constraint theories and recommend combining structural, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic data in analyses. Cross‑linguistic evidence shows that none of the seven major surface constraints is universal, undermining the notion of universal syntactic constraints on code‑mixing and revealing that constraint‑oriented theories inadequately account for socio‑psycholinguistic factors.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This study provides a critical review of the syntactic study of code‐mixing with particular reference to the syntactic constraints paradigm. It examines seven major surface constraints deemed to have universal applicability and shows on the basis of cross‐linguistic data that none of them is universal. It is argued in the light of this finding that the postulation of universal syntactic constraints on code‐mixing may be premature and that the constraint‐oriented theory to the study of this phenomenon is descriptively inadequate because it fails to explicate its socio‐psycholinguistics. The study maintains that factors such as degree of multilinguality, who speaks what variety of language to whom, when , and for what reason are crucial parameters in the formulation of an adequate theory of code‐switching and code‐mixing. To achieve this objective, it is suggested that researchers integrate in their analysis three different but interrelated types of data: structural, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic.