- 48O

Pragmatics
| :4.465
InternationalPragmaticsAssociation

TOWARDSA PRAGMATIC APPROACHTO THE STUDY OF

LANGUAGESIN CONTACT:
EVIDENCEFROM LANGUAGE CONTACT CASESIN SPAIN
Joan A. Argente and Lluis Payrat6

0.

Abstract

The study of languagecontact has been traditionally carried out

from a structural perspective (synchronic or diachronic), from a
sociolinguisticperspective and/or from a rather psychological perspective,
centeredon the linguistic and communicative competenceof the multilingual
individual.
However, a great number of linguistic and sociolinguistic topics
thatappearin languagecontact situationsmay be productively tackled from a
pragmaticviewpoint. This pragmatic perspectivetakes into account linguistic
usein communicationcontexts and raises,at a different level, questionsthat
dealwith the structuresand the evolution of the codes in contact.
The main aim of this presentationis the analysis of some of the
specificproblems that arise in given language contact situations from a
pragmaticperspective,considering the adaptationprocessesof the speakers,
their particular interactive strategies and the social meaning generated.
Understandingpragmatics in its original senss, i.e. as the study of the
relationship
betweenlinguistic signs and speakers(usersof certain resources),
thesephenomenashould be understoodas the result of speakers'adaptationto
changingsociocultural circumstances.This adaptation creates a new
distributionof the verbal resources(or linguistic economy) of the community
and, consequently,modifies its varieties as far as form and function are
concerned.l

I An earlier, shorter version of this paper was delivered as an oral

presentation
at the 1990 International PragmaticsConference(Barcelona,9 13.VII.1990).The authors thank Anxo Lorenzo for comments on the data
presented.

466

Joan A. Argente and Llu{s Pawat1

Introduction and aims

(a)
(b)

2.

The main aim of this contribution is to show that:

the study of languagesin contact may take advantageof a pragmatic
approach,and that
pragmatics as a discipline may benefit in more than one way from the
data obtained in the analysis of language contact, basically in the
following aspects:
(i)
the multilingual individual and his communicativebehaviour,
(ii)
the processesof languagemaintenanceand languageshift, and
(iii) the processesof the adoptionand adaptationof linguisticelements
originally foreign to a code, that is to say, interference.

The analysis of language contact

Languagecontact has never been considereda central domain for

linguistics. Rather, it has been understoodas a peripheralarea, irrelevant to
linguistic thought, and sometimeseven purely anecdotalor marginal. The
reasonswhy this has been so are obviously diverse,but the more important of
them have to do with the prevailing conception about the boundaries of
linguisticsas a science.
Nuances or changes in this conception have determined the
different approachesadvanced.The main lines developedin the study of this
issuehave been:
(a)
the study from a historical point of view (XIX and XX century up to the
thirties),
(b)
the study from a structuralpoint of view (1930'sup to 1953),and
(c)
the study from a sociolinguisticpoint of view (1953 onwards).
While structuralism prevails all along the first half of our
century, later on sociolinguisticsreplacesthat perspective.Weinreich'sbook,
issued in 1953, surely the main work even now in the study of language
contact, representsthe bridge between both conceptions.It starts from a
structuralbasis but establishesfor the first time the necessityof taking into
accountthe socioculturalbackgroundof contact.
Two complementarylines --even geographicallydistinct-- should
still be pointed out: firstly, anthropologicallinguisticsin the U.S.A., which in
part results in the ethnography of communication, and secondly
psycholinguistics in Europe, mainly concerned with the problem of
bilingualism since the mid twenties of this century. In the latter case the

The study of languages in contact

467

subsequentdevelopment could be connected with the recent growth of

neurolinguistics.

3.

Pragmatics and language contact

Setting aside the case of the ethnographyof communication,just

mentioned,and some specific sociolinguistic proposals,pragmaticshas never
beenoneof the dominant views in languagecontact analysis.
The reciprocal ignorance between these fields may be
--even if in a somewhat clumsy way-- by looking at the more
demonstrated
authoritativetextbooks of each speciality. Thus, neither Levinson (1983) nor
Leech(1983) includes any explicit referenceto issuesrelated with language
contact.On the other hand, the work that may be taken more properly as a
textbookon languagecontact,Appel & Muysken (1987), makes no explicit
referenceto pragmatics either. In spite of this mutual oblivion, it seems
reasonableto argue, in general terms, that as far as pragmatics offers a
different, fruitful view of languageproblems --as is usually accepted--it may
do so alsoin this field.
Understandingpragmatics in a very general sense,simply as the
studyof languageuse, we should be concerned,as well as in sociolinguistic
analysis,with:
(a)
(b)
(c)

macrosociolinguistic
processesof maintenanceand shift,
the emergenceof contact varieties attachedto specific social groups
(pidgins,L2 vaneties),and
microsociolinguisticprocessesof interaction,where particular language
choicesare manifested(for instance,code-switching).

If we understand pragmatics in a more traditional restricted

sense,as the study of languageusageas it is producedby languagesusers,the
pragmaticapproachgive entranceto the subjectsin our analysis of linguistic
facts,that is to say, it interprets these facts taking account of the speakers'
values,attitudes and goals. Although this conception is mainly oriented
towardsmicrosociolinguisticprocesses,it further allows us to conceive of
macrosociolinguistic
processesas the result of the speakers'cummulative
choicesand actions.Taken like that, languagemaintenanceand languageshift
maybe viewed as a consequenceof the adaptationof some groups of users to
changingsocioculturalcircumstancesthrough language use continuity or
disruption.

468

Joan A. Argcnte nnd Lluis Pnyat1

This notion, as expounded and analyzed by and large by

Verschueren (1987) may be one of the more significant theoretical
contributions of pragmatics to the analysis of language contact. Leaving
macrosociolinguisticprocessesaside,this adaptationis constantlyproducedby
the subjects'communicativeactivity, basically in languagechoice, in codeswitching and in interference.
A pragmatic perspective,useful and applicable to the analysis of
languagecontact must necessarily be broad and integrative in such a way as
to include all the factors --diverse in origin and nature-- present in
multilingual situations.Charles W. Monis (1938:30) worded it precisely in
these terrns: "it is a sufficiently accuratecharacterizationof pragmaticsto say
that it deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, that is, with all the
psychological, biological, and sociological phenomenawhich occur in the
functioning of signs."
Indeed the biological parallelism in many issues of language
contact has hardly been explored. To give an example, which will be dealt
with further on, let us mention the notion of mimetism applied to interference.
In the same line the concept of adaptationbecomesmore significant and may
be understoodas the users'responseto their environment as well as its effect
on their languages,with the aim of improving and accommodatingthe verbal
resources of the community. To paraphrasea typically sociolinguistic
formulation, the question may be put in the following way: who adapts what,
who adaptsto whom, rvhen,how and why?

4.

The process of linguistic interference

The phenomenacalled code-switchingand code-mixing have been

accounted for traditionally, and even more so lately, from a pragmatic
viewpoint (cf. Gumperz 1970,,1912, 1982; Auer 1983, Heller (ed.) 1988).
Leaving them aside, we may concentrateon the domain of interference,
which, in contradistinctionto the former, has hardly ever been approachedin
this way (cf. Auer 1983,Flores & Valiflas 1987).
Linguistic interferencemay be understood,generally speaking,as
induced
language change, that is to say, as a process by which some
an
elements, originally foreign to a given language,are used by its speakers
(Payrat6 1985:2.2.). The apparent reason for this use is in principle the
speakers'knowledge of other languagesor else the fact that their linguistic
competence does not refer to only one code. However, the real account for
interferenceis not given by this knowledge being mixed at random, as it were,
in linguistic production.

The studyof languagesin contact

469

One must supposethat certain factors influence the processesof

interferencedecisively. What is more, avoiding a purist and academic
misconception,so frequently held around romance languages, one must
supposethat the processesof interference imply some kind of gain for
languagesand their users, at least in terms of the adaptative biological
standpointtaken before.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, this verbal improvement shows up
in expressiveness,
functionality, explicitness,economy of resourcesin the
processes
of languageproduction and understanding,&fld in mechanisms of
informationstorage.After all, that is what can explain in a more real and
deeperway the appearanceof interferencephenomenabetween languagesin
contact.
Interferencehardly ever obeys a single factor. In this sense, it
seemsto be an ideal field for the analysisof the central topics in pragmatics:
of social and cognitive aspectsof languageuse. This can
the interdependence
be ascertainedeither for individual interferencein speechor for interference
in languageas a social code (Weinreich 1953:2.14.).These factors may be
anangedalong the following three axes:
(a)

(b)

(c)

5.

the socioculturalvalue of languagesin contact, in other words, the

socioculturalbackground of languages: the specific sociolinguistic
dimension,
the particular traits of subjects,their (in)capacity to keep both codes
separatein use, and also the individual attitudestowards the languages,
the specificpsycholinguisticdimension,and lastly
the contextual features, that is to say, the specific setting of speech
eventsand the relationshipbetweeninterlocutors.

Functions of interference
language shift

in

language maintenance and

If interference is analyzed not only as a strictly structural fact,

but ratheras a phenomenonwith a functional capacity, it can be shown to
dissimilar long-term processes.2So, interference through
characterize
borrowing,initiated mainly in the lexicon, usually characterizeslanguage
processesand is proper to people who show resistanceto
maintenance

2 The ideasin the presentparagraphhave mainly been drawn from the

presentedin Argente (1989).
analysis

470

Joan A. Argente and Llu{s Pnyat6

language shift. As a consequence,the direction of interference runs from a

dominant to a recessivelanguage.
Otherwise, interference through shift --or substratumeffect--,
in phonic and syntactic structures,usually characterizes
mainly
originated
language shift. Generally speaking, it is proper to people who move towards
the adoption of a new language. Consequently,it runs from a recessive
towards a dominant language.
Thus, in the specific historical Catalan- Spanishlanguagecontact
situation, traditionally borrowing from Spanish into Catalan has been proper
to autochthonous speakers, while nowadays interference through shift
characterizesthe speech of Spanish allochthonous speakersadopting the
Catalanlanguage.
Without considering the consequencesof this fact for the
evolution of the Catalan language,these two types of interference calry out
very different functions. The main function of interferencethrough shift is to
facilitate the learning and use of another languageby Spanish speakers,and
can result in the emergenceof a new languagevariety, in this casea Catalanas
secondlanguagevariety. In contrast,borrowing does not facilitate the learning
of any new language.Rather, as a matter of fact, its objective result is to
functionally restrict and in the end to formally disintegratethe autochthonous
language.Although these processesare evaluated in a very different way
dependingon the users'involvement, both casesmay be qualified as adaptive
strategiesof these users to changing sociocultural factors. In this sense one
might hold interferenceto be one of the linguistic mechanismsproducing
direct consequencesin the macrosociolinguisticprocessesof language
maintenanceand languageshift.
Finally, interferencealso has an adaptive function as far as it
concernsthe verbal repertoire of the community, and goes hand in hand with
sociolinguisticprocessesof expansionor retraction.So, in the caseof CatalanSpanishcontact,borrowing does not imply an increasein the social basis of
the Catalanspeechcommunity, but fumishes it with someexpressiveresources
that will allow this community to accommodateto new circumstances,
although it will keep the community in a sociolinguistically subordinate
position.
Instead, interference through shift contributes in principle to
increasing the social basis of the languagecommunity and to broadening its
verbal repertoire.Again, we seehow interferenceoffers itself as an adaptative
strategy in order for the community to give a linguistic response to the
pressureexerted by socioecologicaland sociopsychologicalcircumstances.Or,

Thesrudyof languagesin contact

47I

adaptationappearsin both casesas a reciprocal relationshipbetween subjects

and the environmentalfactors just mentioned --precisely those modifying t1.
systemof sociocultural values and functions that were prevailing UJfore
contact.

6.

Interference as an adaptive strategy of

pragmaticallyrelevant contexts

speakers in

It is generally assumed that while code-switching is either a

strategyto convey social meaning or a rhetorical device employed in the
constructionof discourse, interference is an automatic, non-monitored.
structurallyall-embracingmechanism.
However, one cannot dismiss the possibility of finding
interferencephenomena used to convey social meaning ind rhetorical
functions. Facts of this kind may be observed in ethnogiaphic fieldwork
centeredupon verbal interactionin small population groups.6 . L . P r e s e n t a t i o no f t h e d a t a
As a matter of fact, some casesof what we have in mind have
beenrecordedby Lorenzo (1990) in the courseof ethnographicfieldwork in a
1ma.llspeechcommunity near Vigo, a Galician seaport-inine North-West of
spain,whereGalician - Spanishlanguagecontacttak^es
place.3
While searching for Galician inherent variation, Lorenzo
observedthat in a-languagecontact setting inherentvariablesmay come about
as a result of the speakers' intentional reallocation of veibal material
originallyproceding from languagecontact phenomena,such as certain kinds
of interference--that is to say, languagecontact tums out to be the source of
inherentvariation in such a setting.
Thus, Lorenzo notes that in spontaneouslanguage use certain
systematic
alternancestake place in some words betweenuaiianis that we will
characterize,
respectively,as an autochthonousvariant and the corresponding
3 The ethnographicfieldwork was carried out in the parish
of Coiro,
within the village of Cangas de Morrazo. Galician is the autochthonous
languageof Galicia, and is habitually used by a people whose main
socioeconomic
activities are related to agriculture, cattla raising, fishing and
merchantnavy.

472

Joan A. Argente nnd Lluis Payat6

allochthonoussolution, for instancesingle lower mid vowel versusdiphthong:

lel I [je] and Ic ] / [we], or voicelesspalatal fricative versusvoicelessvelar
fricative: tS I / [x]. As is shownin cases(1) to (3) below:a
(1a) <...> El nunca sufriu na sfa pel o m[e ]do do mar e os desastres
'He
himself never sufferedthe fear of the seaand the disasters'
(lb)

A trampa que lle est6nfacendo5 gobffe]rno 6 tremenda

'The government
is about to fall into a tenible trap'

(2a) Antes habiamoitos blc ]is labrando<...>

'In
the old days there were many oxen to plough

(2b) O comercioen Pontevedranon est6 tan alto en imp[we]stoscomo

en Vigo
'Taxes
upon trading are not as high in Pontevedraas they are in
Vigo'
(3a) Candoera nova. tam6nanduven6 melS ]il6n
'When
I was young, I also went to harvestmussels'
(3b) ConxuntamenteCoiro e Tirdn eran antespartido Ix]udicial
'Coiro
and Tir6n were once one administrative district'

Traditionally, these differences have been considered as lexical

facts, with no more qualification than treating (b)-casesas instancesof lexical
borrowing, i.e. as loanwords, while considering (a)-casesas traditional
words.5 Now, Lorenzo's contention is that they must be analysedas inherent

4 These data are fragments of natural conversations recorded by

Lorenzo, and include other cases of interferencebesides those studied. The
choice of examplesand English translationsare our own, and they should not
be taken for granted as the best. Variables other than those presentedhave
been investigated, with similar results. Alternances are but one of the
structural results derived from languagecontact.
5 Actually we are in the presenceof correspondencerules or what was
termed "automatic conversionformulae" by Weinreich (1953:1.2.),i.e. rules
that establish interlinguistic equivalencesand diminish the psycholinguistic
burden of bilinguals. From Lorenzo's standpoint these rules would have

The study of languages in contact

473

phonologicalvariables,used by local speakersin order to discriminate sociosymbolicvaluesof legal cunency within the community.
Indeed, a case is made that the single vowel and IS ] variants
appearpredominantlyin so-called local words, that is to say, words referring
to local socioeconomicactivities and homely life. Instead, the imported
diphthong and [x] variants appear in so-called non-local words, i.e.,
vocabularyrelative to activities, institutions or facts originated outside the
speechcommunity.
These systematic alternances affect both nominal and verbal
items.Restrictingourselvesto nominal elements and vowel variables, let us
apply a new seriesof casesclassified according to the mentioned distinction
following severalrelevanttopics:
andsubclassified

(i)

l e L [c ] in local contexts

(A)

Lexical items in merchantnavy or fishing contexts:

(4)
(B)

Lexical items in peasantcontexts:

(s)
(c)

Candonon se via. usabanun cordel e unha p[e ]dra

'When
they could no longer see,they used a cord and a stone'

Mifla irm6 Manuela foi apaflara h[e ]rba 6s h[c ]rtas do cura
'My
sister Manuela went to cut down some herbage from the
parson'sorchards'
Lexical items in homely life contexts:

(6) Eu fago <as> laboresda casa.<non tefro>nin n[e ]tos nin fillos
'I

work at home, <I have> neither grandchildren nor children'

(ii ) Liel,[we] in non-local contexts

(D)

Lexical items in trade contexts:

(1) Pero a maiorfa dos p[we]stos son de toda a vida. sempreveflen

'But

the most of these stalls have been here forever, they always
come <to this market>'

ceased
to be interlingual.

474

Joan A. Argente and Lluis Payat6

(E)

Lexical items in Administration contexts:

(8)

(F)

Estamos no r6gimen especial agrario. por c[we]nta propia.

agraria
'We
are subject to the system for self-employed agricultural
workers'
Lexical items in religiousand sanitarycontexts:

(9)

A misa vou candohai enrffe]rros

'I go
to mass when there is a funeral'

(10) Sacdronmeo tratamffe]ntoporque decfanque xa estababen

'They
took me off the treatment becausethey said that I was no
longer ill'
6 . 2 . D i s c u s s i o no f t h e d a t a
There are several points in Lorenzo's thesis and in our
interpretationof it. These are mainly:
(I)

The altemanceis a matter of phonologicalvariation,not just of lexical

borrowing.
(II) This phonological variation has its sourcein interferencephenomena-originally loanwords.
(III) This phonologicalvariation is of a socio-symbolicnature, in the sense
that it conveyssocial meaning.
(IV) This socio-symbolic phonological variation, originated in contact
phenomena,can be best describedas pragmatic in nature.
Point (II) --or at leastits predicatephrase--would be acceptedby
anyone. Point (III) is the marrow of Lorenzo's contention and the goai of his
argument. Point (I) is in part argued by him and will be reinforced by us
below in the light of somefacts.Point (IV) must be our main contentionhere.
Concerning point (I), there are severalkinds of facts that mav be
adduced in order to argue the phonological character of the phenorn.na
reportedin (1) - (3).Theseinclude:
(i)
The fact that one may find thesealtemancesin verbs, not only nouns.
(ii)
The existencein the verbal repertoireof the cornmunity of paradigmatic
oppositionsbetween lexical items differing only in the use of one or the other
variantand giving way to semanticallyspecializeddoublets,like in (G):

The srudy of languages in contact

(G)

(a)

475

'shop,
local place in the village'/ tienda 'shop,public
tenda
establishmentwhere things can be bought'
'fire'

'fireworks'6

(b)

fogo

(c)

'schooling'
'schoolhouse'
escola
/ escuela

/ fuego

As in the following cases:

(11a) Eu xenteque vefraa apagaro fogo vouche decir que foi: <...>
'Iamgoingtotellyouwhousedtocometoputoutfire:<...>'
(1lb) F'6ltalleun dedo de ir a buscarfuegos
'He
is missing a finger becausehe went to look for fireworks"
In these cases we observe apparent loanwords being used in
with --and not only instead of-- traditional words in such a way
concurrence
that eachlexical form is specializedto convey a different meaning, and this
differencemay be describedin terms of the local / non local opposition. Now,
this fact should reinforce the idea of the use of interference in order to convey
semanticnuancesrelated to some kind of in-group I out-group generated
meaning,and it should pave the way to the assertioncontainedin point (III)
above.Obviously one could interpret these facts not just as cases of
phonological
altemancesbut as different stagesof adaptationin a processof
lexicalborrowing.But now, let us tum to argument(iii):
(iii) More interestingeven than theseparadigmaticoppositionsare the cases
contrastbetweenalternatingforms, such as (12), (13) and (14):
0f syntagmatic
(12) Tu ffxate que non gastanun duro nos barcos.e a n6s en t6dolos
vialS ]es. tefrenque repararo barco e nestefltimo via[x]e ainda
estuvemostres dias parados
'Note
that they don't spend one penny on the ships, and to us on
all the trips, they have to repair the ship, and on this last trip we
were laid up for three days <...>'

6 This is a particurlarly interestingcase,for both terms may be

'fire')
in front of Gal. lume, which
as loanwords (from Sp. fuego,
considered
is thegenuineword. In this caseit is obviousthat the variantsc / we,
to locaVnon-localmeanings,must be taken in fact as exponentsof a
associated
phonologicalvariable, i.e. as a caseof inherentphonological
productive
variation,not just as a caseof a genuinelexical form vs. lexical borrowing.

476

Joan A. Argente and Lluis Payatf

(13) Estehome 6 neto de Paxariflo.Este 6 nieto do home mi{is vello da

parroquia
'This
man is Paxariflo'sgrandson.He is the grandsonof the oldest
man on the parish'
(14) Estabamosdous homes solos. coa m6quina que arrea vinteseis
peixes pE" minuto. e aquf estou. ee que?. qu6roche dicir.
ientendes?.e m6tastea traballar pa <que> o do puente <viva> de
cl6-cl5 <...> a ese home non se lle paga nada. Pdgaselle6s
artistas.i6 asf ou non 6? E si lle contestasalgo xa che estdndando
o pase.xa te amenazancun p3rche.ientiendes?.<...> Fun enlace
sindical durante catro anos. <...> que me nombraron no mar os
marifreirosmisrEgs...e non podesir a ningrinlado. lentiendes?
'There

were only two of us, with the machine tuming out twentyper minute, and here am I --and so what? I mean --do
fishes
six
you understand?--and you kill yourself with work for the one in
the bridge <to live> off the back of another <...> and they pay
almost nothing to this man. They pay the artists, don't they? And
if you try to argue with them, they get rid of you at once, they
threatenyou with the sack --do you understand?
steward for four years
seamen themselves...and you can't go anywhere --do you
understand?'

Lorenzo (1990) remarks that the diphthonged variant always

appearsin secondplace, and attributesto it an expressive(pragmatic)value of
emphasis,partially independentof the basic value we are discussinghere.
(iv) Finally, perhapsthe most interestingcasesto be adducedfor the sake of
the argument would be those where the fact can be observedindependentlyof
any processof lexical borrowing, i.e.those where the variants[e], [we] or Ix]
are used in otherwise Galician traditional words with no correspondingforms
in Spanish,at the time that the original [E], [c] or [S 1 is kept and the purely
phonological alternanceis used to convey the same values as in the cases
mentioned till now. At present,the lack of these casesseem to prove that
hypothesis(I) must be taken in a more coloured sense: the process of
phonologizationhas not yet finished.

soundchange,then,someof these
As in the caseof a spontaneous
that is to say, they affected
factsprobablyoriginatedas lexical phenomena,

The srudy of languagesin contact

477

somespecific lexical items before generalizingto the rest of the contexts

wherethey appearand before evolving towards a sound alternance--and so, a
phonological
variable.
What is at stake here is the nature of some facts of inherent
variationin a languagecontact setting where the languagesin concurrenceare
highly related, and, as a consequence,they share a great part of their
vocabularyand structural features. It is under these circumstances that
original interference phenomena may turn into socio-symbolic inherent
variation.
Centering ourselves on this socio-symbolic value of the
altemances
considered,we describeit as properly pragmaticin nature --more
thansay strictly sociolinguistic--,in so far as the variables do not seem to
identifya style --either measuredin termes of a scale of formality or qualified
as a naturalvariety--, nor to correlate with a stratified social group --men
versuswomen,adults vs. children, older generationvs. younger generations,
uppervs. middle vs. lower classes,peasantworkersvs. sea-workersvs. whitecollars,or any other--, nor even tc characterizea register tied to a welldefinedsocio-culturalsituation.Instead,they seemto mark some topics or keywordsas, so to speak,in-group generatedvs. out-groupgenerated,and so, in
somesense,autochthonousvs. allochthonouswith regardto the community.
This interpretationdoes not follow mechanically from Lorenzo's
data,for the group he investigatedis a relatively homogeneousone as to age,
level, socio-economicactivities and position, ethnic group, etc.
educational
Anyway,everythingseemsto point in the direction of a generahzeduse of the
phonologicalvariablesin the community --even children make use of them
(Lorenzo,personalcommunication).
So, as far as Lorenzo'sanalysisholds true, and as far as our
interpretation
of the facts fits it, we are clearly confronted with a device for
socialmeaning.TOn the other hand, a strictly correlationalanalysis
conveying
wouldprovideus with no adequateinterpretationfor the variablesin question.
Instead,
only an analysisfrom the point of view of the use speakersmake of
themin verbal interactionand from the point of view of the values speakers
to them in this specificsocio-culturalcontextmay put us on the track to
assign

7 As generally accepted, code-switching is another mechanism

to interference,it is usually
socialmeaningand, in contradistinction
conveying
interpreted
as non-automatic.For Galician - Spanish code-switchingin the
observed
community,seeArgente and Lorenzo (1989, 1990).

478

JoanA. Argenteand Lluts Payat6

discover what type of socio-symbolicmeaning is conveyedby variablesof this

kind.
Not only are we allowed to examine these phenomena from a
pragmatic standpoint,but this is the only analysis that will turn out to be the
most appropriate:in so far as some interferencesseem to be governedby the
speakers'purposeful use, they should no longer be consideredas automatic,
non-monitored, general phenomena,but should rather be viewed from a
perspective that takes languageuse --and specifically the relationship between
language signs and their users -- as its main relevant topic of concern. This
viewpoint is the one furnished by pragmatics.
Finally, the adaptive characterof pragmatic values and elements
shows up again. Indeed, we are entitled to considerinterferenceas adaptation,
in so far as it implies variation and choice, for any adaptationconsists in
selectinga variable, the one that is the most suited to a specific purpose.
We believe that studies in this line will also show interferenceto
be used to expressother pragmatically relevant values and functions in social
interaction --either as a way of conveying social meaning or as a strategy in
constructingdiscourse.A specialcasein point should be expressivevaluestied
to irony and humour.
In short, the pragmatic values of interferenceshow both that the
study of languagesin contactmay take advantageof a pragmatic approachand
that pragmatics as a discipline may benefit from the analysis of language
contact.

The study of languages in contact

479

References

APPE,L,R., MUYSKEN, P. (1987) Language contact and bilingualism.

London:Arnold.
ARGENTE,,J.A. (1989) Dindmica social i factors intervinentsen I'extensi6de
I'risdel catalh:la perspectivalingii(stica. Manuscript.
ARGENTE,J.A. (1991) Reflexions sobre algunesconseqtibncieslingtiistiques
del proc6s de normalitzaci6. In J.A. ARGENTE (ed.) Debat sobre la
normalitzaci6linetifstica.Barcelona:Institut d'EstudisCatalans
ARGENTE,J.A., LORENZO, A. (1989) La productividadde la alternancia
lingtiisticaen el contactogallego-castellano.Paper delivered at the XIX
Simposio de la Sociedad Espaflola de Lingiiistica. An abstract has
appearedin RevistaEspafrolade Lingiiistica 20 (1990),148-149.
ARGENTE,J.A., LORENZO, A. (1991) A relevanciasocial da alternancia
lingiiistica.Cademosde lingua 3:91-109.
ARGENTE,J.A., PAYRAT6, L. (1990) Contactede llengi.ies:anrecedentsi
constituci6de I'dmbit de recerca.Limits 8: 81-98.
AUER,J.C.P.(1983) ZweisorachigeKonversationen:Code-Switchingund
Transfer bei italienischen Migrantenkindern in Konstanz.
Sonderforschungsbereich
99, no. 79, University of Konstanz. English
translation:
Bilingual conversation.Amsterdam:J. Benjamins,1984.
FLORES,J.A., VALINIAS, L. (1987) A pragmaticapproachto the linguistic
interferenceprocess: defining a model. Paper delivered at the l98l
InternationalPragmaticsConference.Manuscript.
GUMPERZ,I.J. (1970) Verbal strategiesin multilingual communication.In
J.E. Alatis (ed.) Report of the twenty-first annual round table meeting
on linguisticsand languagestudies.MonographSerieson Languagesand
Linguistics23: 129-143.Washington:GeorgetownUniversity.
GUMPERZ,J.J. (1972) The communicativecompetenceof bilinguals: Some
hypothesesand suggestionsfor research.Languagein Societlzl: I43154.
G U M P E R Z , J . J . ( 1 9 8 2 ) D i s c o u r s e s t r a t e g i e s .C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e
UniversitvPress.

480

Joan A. Argente and Lluis Poyratf

HELLER,M. (ed.)(1988)Codeswitching.
Anthropglogical
andsociolinguistic
perspectives.
Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.
LEVINSON, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
LEECH, G.N. (1983) Principlesof pragmatics.London: Longman.
LORENZO, A. (1990) O mantementolingtiistico: Procesosocial e resultados
estructuraisno contactogalego-castel6n.
Third Cycle ResearchProject,
supervised by J.A. Argente. Bellaterra: Universitat Autdnoma de
Barcelona.
MACKEY, W.F. (1976) Bilinguisme et contact des langues. Paris:
Klincksieck.
M O R R I S , C . W . ( 1 9 3 8 ) F o u n d a t i o n so f t h e t h e o r l zo f s i g n s . C h i c a g o :
University of ChicagoPress.
PAYRAT6, L. (1985) La interferbncialingtiistica. Comentaris i exemples
c a t a l d - c a s t e l l h . B a r c e l o n a : C u r i a l - P u b l i c a c i o n sd e I ' A b a d i a d e
Montserrat.
VERSCHUEREN,J. (1987) Pragmaticsas a theory of linguistic adaptation.
IPrA Working Document 1.

WEINREICH,U. (1953)Languages
in contact.Findingsand problems.New
York. (Seventh
printing,The Hague:Mouton,1970).