Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Borrowing or code-switching? Traces of community norms in Vietnamese-English speech

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Nguyen, Li

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Abstract

This study explores the use of kin terms in a corpus of Vietnamese–English bilingual spontaneous conversation. While the corpus features a range of single Vietnamese lexical items in otherwise English discourse, kin terms, as in the example below, are overwhelmingly the most frequent (accounting for 84%, 164/196, of single Vietnamese words in an English context). The study puts forward an empirical attempt at determining whether such items should be considered code-switches or borrowings, and the role that pragmatic norms play in shaping this linguistic behaviour. Discourse distribution of the kin terms in terms of person reference and syntactic role are used as cross-language ‘conflict sites’, to determine the level of integration of such items as a test of their status as code-switches or borrowings. This reveals that the distribution of Vietnamese kin terms in an otherwise English context mirrors that of Vietnamese kin terms in monolingual Vietnamese, and is distinct from that of English kin terms. This measure of integration suggests that these may be single-word code-switches. Nonetheless, the high frequency of use and their diffusion across the community are suggestive of borrowings. Follow-up interviews with the participants reveal specific community norms that underlie the use of these terms, namely as a linguistic resource to retain, promote and conform to community cultural practice. While the paper acknowledges the difficulty in determining the exact status of these forms based on existing criteria, it demonstrates how judicious application of empirical methodology enables us to pinpoint such strategies in studying language in contact.

Description

Citation

Source

Australian Journal of Linguistics

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until

2099-12-31