1) The MLF Hypothesis
Myers-Scotton’s MLF, Matrix Language Frame model (1993), was designed to deal specifically with intrasentential CS. She designated three main elements within the morphosyntactic frame of the Matrix Language in
intrasentential codeswitching: ML islands, or Matrix Language islands, where ‘constituents are composed entirely of ML morphemes’(Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 6) , and EL islands or Embedded Language Islands, where constituents of the embedded language exist independently from the Matrix language, and finally ML+EL constituent phrases, which show ‘morphemes from the two or more participating languages’ (ibid.). It is the ML+EL constituent phrases that are really where the two languages mix together. Although the term
‘codemixing’ is used by some to indicate what is defined in this thesis as codeswitching, only ML+EL constituents, in my opinion, seem to fit the label of codemixing.112
Myers-Scotton (1993) outlines the central hypotheses of the MLF Hypothesis governing intrasentential CS, in particular, the appearance of ML+EL
constituents. The main hypotheses are duplicated here for the purposes of clarity, beginning with the Matrix Language hypothesis proper:
The Matrix Language Hypothesis: The ML sets the morphosyntactic frame for ML + EL constituents. This hypothesis is realised as two testable principles: the Morpheme-Order Principle (‘Morpheme order must not violate ML morpheme order’) and the System-Morpheme Principle (‘All syntactically relevant system morphemes must come from the ML’). (p. 7)
There are also three interrelated hypotheses, which Myers-Scotton developed in support of this central hypothesis:
The Blocking Hypothesis: The ML blocks the appearance of any EL content morphemes which do not meet certain congruency conditions with ML counterparts.
The EL Island Trigger Hypothesis: Whenever an EL morpheme appears which is not permitted under either the ML hypothesis or the Blocking Hypothesis, the constituent containing it must be completed as an obligatory EL island.
The EL Implicational Hierarchy Hypothesis: Optional EL islands occur; generally they are only those constituents which are either formulaic or idiomatic or peripheral to the main grammatical arguments of the sentence. (Myers-Scotton, 1993, ibid)
2) Problematic Mixed Language Phrases
There were a few sentences and phrases within the mixed constituents which seem to challenge the MLF frame and perhaps, for a couple, the grammatical rules of both languages. These sentences are listed below and on the following page:
Example 5.21
恋爱 ing 改变 ing Lianai ing gaibian ing (19)
being in love changes (you) constantly
Example 5.22
心情一飞冲天
Xinqing yi fei chong tian
As soon as your feelings shoot up into the sky
带你的烦恼 away Dai ni de fannao away (97)
they take your worries away
In example 5.21 there are two Chinese verbs 恋爱 lian ai ‘to be in love’, and 改变 gaibian ‘change,’ being given the English continuous suffix, ‘-ing’. The ‘–ing’ form of the English verb in English as has been noted is a ‘system morpheme’ of English grammar, but is it in conflict with the Matrix Language hypothesis? Myers-Scotton’s rule about system morphemes is that ‘all
syntactically relevant system morphemes must come from the ML.’ If these endings are removed from the Chinese there are two meaningful verbs, the second of which would need an object to be a complete sentence. But here the ‘–ing’ suffix completes the meaning, as this ‘–ing’ seems to indicate
continuous and unending change, and makes a statement about the power of love. So this example seems to break the system morpheme rule of the MLF hypothesis. It doesn’t break the morpheme order hypothesis though, for the grammatical order of the added bound morpheme follows the Chinese
The adverb ‘away’ in example 5.22, although not a system morpheme, does appear to conflict with a number of MLF hypotheses. First of all, the Chinese morpheme order for a concept expressed here by the word ‘away’ would not be expressed at the end of the sentence after the object, as it is here. It would be 带走你的烦恼 dai zou ni de fan nao expressed in this order in English as ‘take away your worries.’ The word order of 带你的烦恼 away dai ni de fan
nao away presented in Example 5.22, follows English grammar on the
inclusion of the English word ‘away’ by itself. As resultative complement of the verb 带 dai ‘take’, 走 zou which means movement away from an original place must occur in Chinese directly after the verb. The ML does not appear to be setting the syntactic frame for the ML+EL constituents here. It might be worthwhile at this stage to revisit the Matrix Language hypothesis to see if the other interrelated hypotheses can eliminate this apparent anomaly:
The Blocking Hypothesis: The ML blocks the appearance of any EL content morphemes which do not meet certain congruency conditions with ML counterparts.
The EL Island Trigger Hypothesis: Whenever an EL morpheme appears which is not permitted under either the ML hypothesis or the Blocking Hypothesis, the constituent containing it must be completed as an obligatory EL island.
The EL Implicational Hierarchy Hypothesis: Optional EL islands occur; generally they are only those constituents which are either formulaic or idiomatic or peripheral to the main grammatical arguments of the sentence.
It would seem that the Blocking Hypothesis fails here unless the Chinese grammatical rules could somehow accept a similar meaning to ‘away’ that can be used together with 带, and which can be used at the end of the sentence. The Trigger Hypothesis seems invalid since there is only one word at the end of the sentence, and the next line begins with Chinese. The word ‘away’ here is probably not an ‘optional EL island’ either since the solitary preposition is neither ‘formulaic’, ‘idiomatic’, nor ‘peripheral to the main grammatical arguments of the sentence.’ All of the above reasons seem to show that this sentence does not agree with the dictates of the MLF hypotheses.
Example 5.23
不爱就转身离开
Bu ai jiu zhuan shen likai
If (you) don’t love (me), just turn around and walk away.
一个人把回忆推翻 Yi ge ren ba huiyi tuifan
One person turns upside down all those memories.
不爱 for 的 love 未来
Bu ai for de love weilai (143)
Don’t love in the future.
Example 5.23 above is another problematic example for the MLF hypothesis. Although the first part of the phrase here using ‘for’ is almost parallel to the use of 为了 in Chinese meaning ‘in order to, for the purpose of’, and so
follows Chinese grammatical rules, in this example it is complicated
somewhat with the addition of the 的 de. As de is nominal modifier marker, and a clear system morpheme, it is very strange that it exists alone here, and certainly conflicts with the MLF hypothesis.
5.2.4. Section Summary
In this section a number of important things have been demonstrated about the use of codeswitching in these modern CE songs. Firstly, the inclusion of previously excluded material, such as speech and rap not present in the printed lyrics, the relationship of intrasentential to intersentential CS, as well as the categories within these, has shown a more complete picture of the grammatical and lexical reality of CS in Chinese pop music than what had been revealed in other studies that did not take these into account. Secondly, a number of variations of intersentential and intrasentential presentation have been indicated that may increase interest in these kinds of songs. Furthermore, the grammatical means by which the English is modified to match the Chinese language in which it is embedded is more evident. Finally, this linguistic analysis has identified a couple of cases which conflict with the MLF
hypotheses. While these are only a few isolated cases, they do lend support to Bentahila and Davies’s finding that conversational codeswitching and CS in
songs are quite different. In the next section other features of CS, within the topic of the metaphorical functions of codeswitching, will be examined.