Relating Lexical Borrowing and
This chapter deals with the relationship between lexical borrowing and codeswitching (CS), concentrating on the two as processes but also considering their outcomes. The general argument is that singly occurring forms originating with the EL, whether CS or borrowed forms (hereafter B forms), are part of the same developmental continuum, not unrelated phenomena, as some have argued. Evidence is that they undergo largely the same morphosyntactic procedures (of the Matrix Language, or ML) during language production. Therefore, it turns out, the motivation for distinguishing them in order to assess models of morphosyntactic constraints on CS seems to evaporate, at least for content morphemes.
However, even though they are subject to the same production procedures, the lexical entries of CS and B forms must be different, since B forms become part of the mental lexicon of the ML, while CS forms do not. I follow Levelt ( 1989: 6) in his definition of the mental lexicon as 'the store of information about the words in one's language'.
The reason to explore differences in this regard is that status as a CS or B form affects a morpheme's distributional possibilities in CS utterances, if it is a system morpheme. Also, a difference in status affects frequency, and an exploration of this nature leads to an explanation of why CS forms have little recurrence value, in contrast with B forms.
Possible criteria for distinguishing borrowing and CS are considered, but the conclusion is that traditionally recognized criteria (i.e. dealing with degree of integration of B forms) yield mixed results and are not useful metrics for this reason. Thus, absolute frequency and also relative frequency of occurrence of the test items present themselves as the most reliable criteria.
I will propose some generalizations about borrowing as it relates to CS; that is, I do not claim to offer a comprehensive view of borrowing per se. However, in dealing with contact-induced change, especially in regard to