ArticlePDF Available

Banglish: Code-switching and Contact Induced Language Change in a Spoken Variety of Bangla

Authors:

Abstract

Banglish, mixing of Bangla-English, is a newly emerged spoken variety of Bangla mostly used by the urban people in Bangladesh. Due to historical, political and economic reasons, the presence of English induces a situation of code-switching here. Based on the literatures of established connection between code-switching and borrowing, this paper tries to indicate this popular tendency of Bangla-English codeswitching has given a new shape to the spoken variety of Bangla. In Banglish, English origin single items are inserted in Bangla matrix after going through the process of noun modification, pluralization, compound and conjunct verb constructions, and phonological integration. Therefore, within the limited scope of this paper , it attempts to identify the status of these English origin items in Bangla- English mixed context in order to answer the question whether all these English origin items are code switched or borrowed elements. Correspondingly, the degree of morphological, syntactical and phonological integration of these items is applied as diagnostics for verification. Finding this answer may help us to identify the status of Banglish as a changed variety of Bangla as well. Only qualitative method is used to analyze these spoken data collected from RJ talks of FM radio channels representing the urban spoken variety.
SPECTRUM
Volume 12, 2016
Editor
Tahmina Ahmed
Associate Editor
Nazmeen Haq
Editorial Board
Ahmed Bashir
Afrin Zeenat
Md. Elias Uddin
Zaynul Abedin
Cover Design
Afrin Zeenat
ISSN
1562-7195
Printed at
Natundhara Printing Press
About Spectrum
Spectrum: Journal of the Department of English is a refereed journal published by the
Department of English, University of Dhaka. Spectrum welcomes essays on any literary
period and any aspect of literature and language, book reviews, short stories and poems.
Submissions should not have been previously published, or be under consideration for
publication elsewhere. Only articles/ creative pieces recommended by reviewers will be
accepted for publication.
Submissions should conform to the MLA/APA Style Manual and range from 2,000 to
6,000 words. Contributors should include an abstract (250 words), a biography of the
author (100-150 words), institutional affiliation, contact number and email address with
the manuscripts. Please provide two paper copies and one electronic copy for every
submission.
Submissions should be addressed to:
The Editor
Spectrum: Journal of the Department of English
University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000
Email: spectrum.ed.du@gmail.com
Contents
Literature
“Are the Green Fields Gone? What Do They Here?”: Herman Melville
and Ecological Consciousness
Fakrul Alam
1
Beyond Nation: Glimpses of Global Imagination in Bernard Shaw’s John
Bull’s Other Island, Sean O’Casey’s The Plough and the Stars and Brian
Friel’s Translations
Ashim Dutta
9
Machines of the Roaring Twenties and Their Effects on Flappers’
Individualism in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby
Sanjeeda Hossain
21
Katherine Mansfield: Feminist Self and "Cry against Corruption"
Mohammad Shahidul Islam Chowdhury
29
When the Woman Speaks: A Reading of Christina Rossetti’s “Repining”
and “Autumn”
Sohana Manzoor
39
Kaiser Haq’s Voice against the Eurocentric Tradition: A Reflection from
the Poems Published in the Streets of Dhaka
Nahid Afroz and Farhana Yeasmin
47
An Ecocritical Reading of Syed Manzoorul Islam’s “The Two Assassins”
and “The Merman’s Prayer”
Md. Elias Uddin
55
Nature: A Warrior or a Victim of War? Reading Midnight’s Children in
the Light of the Liberation War of Bangladesh (1971)
Khandaker Ashraful Islam
65
Creative Writing
Stone Age
Syed Manzoorul Islam
75
Santahar
Kaiser Haq
85
Rabindranath Tagore
Chitto Jetha Bhoyshunyo
87
Because Zero Stopped By
By Shamsad Mortuza
88
Inspiration
Batool Sarwar
90
English Department: In Memoriam
Batool Sarwar
91
Lost in Space
Rumana Siddique
93
Applied Linguistics & ELT
Reading Strategy Use and Gender Differences among Undergraduate
EFL/ESL Students
Ahmed Bashir
99
3 C's of Student Writers' Identity Formation Using Personal Language
Anjuman Ara
129
Banglish: Code-switching and Contact Induced Language Change in a
Spoken Variety of Bangla
Tanzina Tahereen
143
Role of Word Association in a Bangladeshi Child’s First Language
Acquisition
Sabreena Ahmed and Naushin Nazifa Islam
165
Book Review
Under the Banyan Tree and Other Stories: ‘A Miniature of Human
Experience in all its Opulence’
Zaynul Abedin
183
Banglish: Code-switching and Contact Induced Language
Change in a Spoken Variety of Bangla
Tanzina Tahereen*
Abstract
Banglish, mixing of Bangla-English, is a newly emerged spoken variety of Bangla
mostly used by the urban people in Bangladesh. Due to historical, political and
economic reasons, the presence of English induces a situation of code-switching
here. Based on the literatures of established connection between code-switching and
borrowing, this paper tries to indicate this popular tendency of Bangla-English code-
switching has given a new shape to the spoken variety of Bangla. In Banglish,
English origin single items are inserted in Bangla matrix after going through the
process of noun modification, pluralization, compound and conjunct verb
constructions, and phonological integration. Therefore, within the limited scope of
this paper , it attempts to identify the status of these English origin items in Bangla-
English mixed context in order to answer the question whether all these English
origin items are code switched or borrowed elements. Correspondingly, the degree of
morphological, syntactical and phonological integration of these items is applied as
diagnostics for verification. Finding this answer may help us to identify the status of
Banglish as a changed variety of Bangla as well. Only qualitative method is used to
analyze these spoken data collected from RJ talks of FM radio channels representing
the urban spoken variety.
Keyword: code-switching, borrowing, language change, Banglish
Introduction
Contact with other languages is a prominent factor to cause language situations of code
switching, borrowing and convergence to occur. Alternation between languages in
bilingual discourse is an obvious phenomenon which has been a significant and
interesting issue in bilingualism study during last decades (Samar & Meechan, 1998).
The processes in which these languages are being combined or alternated are also of an
important concern. Moreover, various manifestations of language alternations or
combinations are a way to language change in turn (Roseano, 2013). The intensity of the
contacts between two languages always ensures the possibility of contact induced
language change (Thomason-Kaufman, 1988). However, to find out the distinction
between different manifestations of language contact in particular has always been a
major problem (Samar & Meechan, 1998).
Bangla is an Indo Aryan language which descended from Sanskrit. It ranks 5th in terms of
the number of speakers among the world languages (Thompson, 2012). Bangla is the
native language in Bangladesh, and West Bengal in India. Its vocabulary is mostly
derived from Sanskrit, but it has a big portion of vocabulary borrowed from many other
* Senior Lecturer, Department of English, East West University
144 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
languages such as, English, Dutch, Persian, Arabic, and Portuguese. But, after the British
colonization, English has been the most influential language for Bangla due to socio-
economical, educational and political reasons (Banu & Sussex, 2001). Not only a number
of vocabularies are incorporated in Bangla vocabulary summing up the Bangla tongue
set, but also various chunks and expressions are spontaneously integrated in daily
conversation. Moreover, English is a second language in Bangladesh, and its social status
is high. Because of its high prestige value, English is widespread in society, especially in
urban areas. During last decades, this spread is highly noticeable everywhere in the urban
society, and thus there emerges a new urban variety of Bangla i.e. Banglish, a mixture of
Bangla and English. Some questions arise: What is Banglish? Is it a new variety of
English? , or Is it a blending language? To be specific to answer, Banglish is a mixture
(not blend) of English and Bangla in which purely English words or phrases or clauses
are used within Bangla Matrix. Banglish is not blending as it refers to the process of
forming a word by shortening and combining various parts of different words (for
example, smoke+fog=smog) (Gries, 2004). Banglish does not include that process.
Moreover, Banglish is a spoken variety used by urban people who are usually bilingual;
however, the degree of bilingualism varies from person to person. As the media are
mostly responsible for spreading this variety and making it popular, it has become a
prevalent urban dialect even among the monolinguals; however, the social attitudes
towards it are mixed. The most significant feature of Banglish is code switching. A lot of
researches are done on this issue. Furthermore, it engages a number of English origin
words within its boundary. Along with listedor attested (enlist in Bangla dictionary)
English words which are borrowed, there are some other unlisted or unattested (not
enlisted in Bangla dictionary) English origin words found in Banglish frequently.
Consequently, the focus of this paper is not to analyze the code switching patterns in
Banglish, but to identify the status of the ‘unlisted’ English origin single words which
have been addressed as code mixing in most of the studies (Alam, 2006; Hosain, 2014).
This paper analyzes these various English origin items, listed or unlisted, in Banglish to
find out the answer of this complicated question. However, most of the features of
Banglish overlap various forms of code-switching occurred in Bangla. Consequently, this
paper shows how some unattested (not enlisted in Bangla dictionary) English origin
single words can be reanalyzed and considered as borrowed items.
Moreover, though there arises a noteworthy question whether Banglish is an established
term or not, this paper does not address that question, rather it deals with the idea of how
code-switching contributes to language change or emergence of a new variety. Therefore,
the aim of this paper is to concentrate on the issue whether these English origin single
items are code-switched or borrowed items. Furthermore, to find out the answer, this
paper involves the diagnostics to distinguish between code-switching and borrowing in
order to identify the status of the English origin items in Banglish. As the limited scope
of this paper does not allow presenting the quantitative analysis/study, it engages the
strategies to identify the degree of integration of English origin words into Bangla in
order to exhibit the qualitative analysis. Thus, the study tries to show the level of
integration of these English origin items into Bangla mixed contexts by comparing those
with various cases in different situations. Therefore, the main quest in this paper is to
identify the status of unattested’ or ‘unlisted’ English origin words in Banglish.
Tanzina Tahereen 145
In order to show a qualitative analysis by using some diagnostics, the paper uses the
obtained data in four contexts for drawing comparisons. First, the data in Banglish
represent the use of listed’ or ‘attested’ English origin words with specific features.
Second, use of the unlisted’ or ‘unattested’ English origin words with the same feature
are also shown in Banglish. The comparison between the function and the position of the
listed and unlisted word is a significant factor to identify the status of English origin
items in utterances. Third, the same feature is shown by using the Bangla items in
unmixed Bangla contexts to realize the level of integration of the lone English words into
Banglish. Fourth, the same feature is shown in English unmixed context which helps to
identify how alienated behaviour these foreign items show to their own languages.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical foundation of this paper establishes on the concept of borrowing and code
switching. Though both the terms are very close to each other in terms of functions and
roles, they are clearly distinct from each other in many respects. Setting an exact criterion
to distinguish between code-switching and borrowing have never been easy. Therefore, a
number of researches are done by using the variationist framework in order to show how
code switching is qualitatively and quantitatively different from borrowing (Meechan &
Poplack, 1995). But, the debates have not been resolved yet. The identity of single
foreign items in discourse still remains “ambiguous” (Samar & Meechan, 1998, p. 204).
However, it is uncontroversial that the inclusion of lexical item from one language into
another language occurs either in the form of borrowing or in the form of code switching.
According to Samar & Meechan (1998),
Lone items from one language may appear in another language without any
inflectional affixes and in syntactic positions consistent with either language,
making their identification as code-switching or borrowing even more
complicated (p. 205).
Borrowing and Code-switching
According to Haugen (1950), borrowing means adoption of an element from a second
language into a speaker’s language (cited in Poplack & Dion, 2012). In other words,
borrowing is a process in which speakers use linguistic elements from another language
and then, gradually transfer that element into their own language. Borrowing occurs when
a speaker, who is not necessarily bilingual, uses a single word of foreign origin within a
sentence in his own language. Such a word, though originally taken from a donor
language, is perceived as a part of the mental lexicon of the speaker’s own language
(Roseano, 2013). When certain linguistic elements are transferred, it is called lexical
borrowing or material borrowing, and the transfer of rules or grammatical structure refers
to structural borrowing. High intensity of language contact is required for structural
borrowing to take place than lexical borrowing (Thomason and Kaufman 1988; Myers-
Scotton1993;Haspelmath 2009) though some linguists think that structural borrowing
happens as a result of lexical borrowing (Haspelmath, 2009), and some think it is a result
of code switching (Myers-Scotton, 1992).
Moreover, code-switching has been variously defined as the juxtaposition within the
same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical
146 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
systems or subsystems” (Gumperz 1982, cited in Menfreidi, Senelle, & Tosco, 2015).
Matras, for his part, simply defines CSW (code-switching) as the alternation of
languages within a conversation” (Matras 2009, cited in Menfreidi et al, 2015).
Moreover, Manfredi et al. (2015) define code-switching as “the presence of lexical or
sentential material belonging to different linguistic systems, provided that its different
origin is still transparent in the speaker’s output in one or more grammatical domains
(2015, p. 4). This definition is clear enough to draw a distinction between code-switching
and borrowing. In addition, insertional or intra-sentential code-switching occurs at word
level in a sentence, or alternational or inter-sentential code switching occurs at sentence
or clause level.
Identifying differences between borrowing and code-switching
The context of Banglish, a new variety of Bangla, is completely consistent with MLF
(Matrix Language Framework) model in Mayer-Scotton research (1993). They try to
show in a code switching context, EL (Embedded Language) and ML (Matrix Language)
are mixed together, but the syntactic pattern is selected from ML, and the morphological
items are taken from EL in ML+ EL context. They also talk about secluded ML context
and EL context. Banglish is the perfect context from code-switching analysis that leads to
some contact induced language changes.
Before we start analyzing whether or not such inclusion of foreign items in Bangla is
code switching or borrowing, we have to analyze what the differences and likeness
between these two terms are. There are two different approaches regarding this
connection. First, a group of linguists consider that borrowing and code-switching are
two different phenomena (Poplack & Meechan, 1998), and the other group considers that
these are the part of one continuum where code-switching leads to borrowing, and plays
the role of incorporating new words into the recipient language (Myers-Scotton, 1993).
Though these two different approaches apparently seem to be opposite to each other, they
are basically parallel counterparts of the same issue.
In contrary to others, Matras (2009, cited in Manfredi et al., 2015) shows a bidirectional
continuum of code-switching (CSW) and borrowing (BORR) through a model
representing the relationship between two. Through this model, he argues that these two
notions are not different from each other theoretically. Rather, considering them as two
complete distinct phenomena is arbitrary (Mahootian, 1993, cited in Samar & Meechan,
1998). Nevertheless, Manfredi et al. (2011) illustrate some distinguishing criteria based
on theoretical and heuristic ground.
Moreover, Haspelmath (2009) says, the difference between code-switching and
borrowing is not a practical but a theoretical one. He mentions two possible approaches
through which these two terms can be distinguished, and these are frequency of use and
degree of integration or adaptation. The modification of the incompatible features of the
element from donor language in order to be assorted in the recipient language is called
integration or adaptation. A borrowed item can have various degrees of adaptation
which are determined by the duration of the use of loan words, the frequency of the usage
and the degree of bilingualism (Haspelmath, 2009). In other words, Poplack & Sankoff
(1984, cited in Stammars & Deuchar, 2012) explain the linguistic criteria referring to the
Tanzina Tahereen 147
level of morphological, phonological and syntactic integration of the foreign lone items,
and usage-based criteria referring to the rate of the usage of those terms in recipient
language. All of them also accept that these criteria are not applicable to all classes of
loan words, and applicability of these does not always prove the status of the items.
Furthermore, the Null Theory of Code switching (NTCS) which does not believe that
there are any grammatical constraints to code-switching (Mahootian, 1993, cited in
Samar & Meechan, 1998), does not find it necessary to distinguish between code-
switching and borrowing as long as they do not behave in a different way (Samar &
Meechan, 1998). Though this concept opposes the theoretical belief of Nonce Borrowing
(occurrence of foreign items once by one or two speakers), it does not want to distinguish
between code switching and borrowing based on the criterion how much widespread and
frequent they are in the recipient language. Rather, considering them two complete
distinct phenomena is arbitrary (Mahootian, 1993, p. 57, cited in Samar & Meechan,
1998). Also, many linguists argue that there is no need to have a concept like nonce
borrowing, and this concept is unnecessary to them (Stammers & Deuchar, 2012) because
it is not logical to distinguish between borrowing and code switching based on one
example (Samar & Meechan, 1998). However, at one point, both NBH (Nonce
Borrowing Hypothesis) and NTCS (Null Theory of Code-switching) agree, and that is on
the occurrence of the lone item as noun. Lone nouns and original nouns appear in the
same structure in the recipient language though NBH (Nonce Borrowing Hypothesis)
also mentions the rate of occurrence (Samar & Meechan, 1998).
All these theoretical investigations provide with qualitative and quantitative factors which
can be used as probable diagnostics of differentiating between code switching and
borrowing.
First, morphological integration is a significant factor. The definition of code-switching
that Malfredi et al. (2015) provide with, expresses that borrowing and code switching are
different in terms of their level of morphological integration of the foreign elements in
the recipient language. They add, the origin of donor language item in recipient language
is not the determiner of code switching or borrowing, rather their condition in the
recipient language decides whether these are borrowed or code switched. Every borrowed
item may not have the same degree of integration; it may be lower or higher. As
Mahootian notes (cited in Samar & Meechan, 1998), borrowed items are easily integrated
into the grammatical structure of the host language, and disembodied from their own
grammar (1993, cited in Samar & Meechan, 1998).
Second, borrowed items are usually phonologically different. These items in recipient
language carry some modified phonological features distinct from the original items in
donor language. Moreover, phonological integration is a noteworthy diagnostic to
identify the status of a foreign lone item in recipient language because some level of
phonological change is necessary, but it is not necessary for code switching to happen.
However, many linguists do not consider phonological integration a reliable criterion to
distinguish between borrowing and code switching because there remains a possibility for
the code-switched elements to be influenced by the phonology of native language as well
(Poplack, 2012; Poplack & Dion, 2012; Melfredi. et al. 2011).
148 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
Nevertheless, there still remains a setback with morphological and phonological
integration because intra-sentential code-switching may also have phonological and
morphological integration in the recipient language. “The individual outcomes of intra-
sentential code-switching and borrowing may appear similar on the surface, particularly
when the other language items are single word ‘lone items’” (Samar & Meechan, 1998).
Third, for code switching, the speakers need to have knowledge of two languages though
it is not necessary to be equally proficient in both. At least, some knowledge of two
languages is necessary. However, for borrowing it is not essential. Contact between two
languages is surely required to cause borrowing, but monolinguals can easily necessitate
lexical borrowing without knowing the donor language at all (Manfredi et al 2011;
Haspelmath, 2009). According to Poplack (2001), “The stock of established loanwords is
available to monolingual speakers of the recipient language, who access them normally
along with the remained of the recipient-language lexicon” (p. 3). However, if there is
much possibility of language contact in a community, the borrowing is quick and
magnitude there (Roseano, 2013).
Fourth, pragmatic factors are also significant. According to Malfredi et al. (2015), a
noteworthy factor to differentiate between code switching and borrowing is a pragmatic
factor which refers to the choice of the speakers for specific item reflecting the social and
psychological values shared in the same community. This factor does not work for
borrowing since it does not require the bilingual community, and is not the result of the
choice of the speakers influenced by social and psychological issues. However, it does
not mean that borrowing does not occur with bilingualism.
Fifth, Muysken (2000, cited in Stammers & Deuchar, 2012, p. 632) proposes the notion
of ‘listedness’, that refers to the degree to which a particular element or structure is part
of a memorized list which has gained acceptance within a particular speech community.
In many studies, ‘listedness’ works as a significant variable to differentiate between
borrowed and code-switched elements. Many oppose the idea of ‘listedness’ saying that
there are many unlisted borrowed items which are perfectly integrated and frequently
used in the recipient languages (Stammer & Deuchar, 2012 , Samar and Meechan, 1998),
however, they agree it is difficult to identify which unlisted foreign single word is
borrowed. They term them as ‘ambiguous’ (Samar & Meechan, 1998, p. 204).
Sixth, though there are many debates considering the use of frequency as a diagnostic,
many studies apply this criterion to distinguish between borrowed and code-switched
items. However, it was not the only criterion to do so. According to Stammers & Deuchar
(2012), the degree of integration of an item and the use of frequency are connected to the
level of integration that increases gradually with the rate of frequency of the usage. They
deny the concept of nonce borrowing as it claims to have the same level of integration for
frequent and non-frequent words (2012). It can be a significant criterion but cannot work
as the sole criterion for identifying the real status.
Tanzina Tahereen 149
The Study
Research Question
This study is mainly based on one basic research question:
“Are the ‘unattested or ‘unlisted’ English origin lone words in Banglish borrowed or
code-switched?”
The quest for identifying the status of English lone words in Banglish may lead to the
edge of establishing the impact of contact induced language change. An intense
continuous contact of English with Bangla has given a rise to a new spoken variety
Banglish. However, the question does not arise with the ‘listed’ English origin lone
words as they are already attested with Bangla. The uncertain position of ‘unlisted’
English origin lone words is the key to identify the impact of this contact induced
language change though there are lots of controversies. In spite of having all these
debates, this paper tries to come up with a temporary answer of the research question
based on the limited obtained data.
Data Collection Procedure
The data are mostly the recordings of some FM shows (RJ talk and listeners talk)
representing the urban society in Bangladesh. As the young generation mostly uses this
variety, these RJ talks and FM shows reflect that, too. These recordings contain the
Banglish variety perfectly. The duration of the total recordings is 5 hours, and in order to
analyze the written transcripts most of these recordings are prepared. Sentences
containing English-origin words, attested/listed and unattested/unlisted, are randomly
selected from those transcripts/recordings for the comparisons. To confirm the
listedness’ of English-origin words, the Bangla Academy dictionary has been used.
Criteria for Identification
As it is already mentioned, the paper does not show any quantitative analysis, it does not
present any percentage or rate of the occurrence of the listed and unlisted items in
recipient language. Besides, presenting any numerical information based on such a small
amount of data does not contribute significantly to the analysis while the investigation is
qualitative. Therefore, it focuses on the qualitative analysis only by identifying the degree
of integration of the English origin items in the obtained data. In order to identify this, the
method of Samar and Meechan (1998), and that of Poplack and Dion (2012) are partially
adopted. So, among all the diagnostics, this paper applies the morphological and
phonological integration as the prime diagnostics to identify the status of the English
origin lone items in Bangla. This analysis focuses on the morphological integration of
noun and verbs in the variety, and the phonological integration of those items. Like all
other studies, this also concentrates on the noun which is the highest borrowable item in
the ‘hierarchy of borrowibility’ (Poplack, Sankoff & Miller, 1988). It also focuses on the
combination of verbs in compound verb and conjunct verb constructions as this
integration creates a distinctive feature in Banglish. Banglish: Bangla-English mixed
situation provides a perfect conflict situation for these analyses. Both Bangla and English
are different in word order, noun modification, and verb constructions; therefore, these
data provide a clear position to illustrate the code-switching and borrowing distinction,
and to classify the items by showing a comparison. The comparisons are shown in terms
150 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
of noun modification, compound verb construction, and nativization of phonological
aspects. Based on these three diagnostics, this paper attempts to identify the status of the
English origin lone items in this new variation. The inquiries to identify are: (a) whether
or not the unattested ambiguous English origin lone items behave like attested English
origin lone items in various contexts in Banglish; (b) whether or not the unattested items
in mixed situation and original Bangla words in unmixed Bangla context behave
similarly; (c) whether or not the unattested English origin items follow the grammar of
English in unmixed context. Therefore, if the unattested English origin lone items behave
like the attested English origin lone items in mixed situations, they are borrowed items. If
they behave differently, then the unattested ambiguous items are considered as code-
switched items. So, every data on unattested lone items is presented in comparison with
three other counterparts in three different contexts. It is not easy to identify the degree of
integration. Therefore, comparing targeted items with different recognized items in mixed
and unmixed situations can be a convincing strategy to identify them. According to
Poplack and Dion (2012),
To the extent that a lone other language item assumes features associated
with one but not the other of the contact languages (e.g. absence of inflection
in a context where the other language inflects), we can infer whether donor
language or recipient-language grammar is operating (p. 10).
This comparative study on the obtained data is presented in the following patterns already
showed in Samar & Meechan study (1998):
i. The integration level of unattested English origin items in Banglish: Bangla-
English mixed context;
ii. The integration level of attested English origin items in Banglish: Bangla-English
mixed context;
iii. The modification of Bangla items in unmixed Bangla context.
iv. The modification of English items in unmixed English context.
Limitations of the Study
Though this study tries to address a predominant issue in the study of language varieties
of Bangla, the result does not claim an established fact. This paper has some limitations:
first, this study is not based on a wide variety of practical data. The data does not include
the spoken sample of people from all ranges. This study does not address the language
spoken by all ages of people. As it is already mentioned, Banglish is mostly an urban
spoken variety, this paper does not look for the rural variety. In addition, only young
generation has been targeted. Therefore, these features cannot be claimed as
representative of the whole generation. Moreover, the term Banglish is not an established
or widely accepted term in Bangladesh though some studies have been found on working
on this. There exist lots of controversies regarding the term Banglish. However, the
significance of this study cannot be denied. This study is believed to add an important
feature to the study of language variety in Bangla.
Therefore, because of the limited scope of this paper and limited set of data, this paper
does not intend to present any generalization or any axiomatic feature of language variety
Tanzina Tahereen 151
Banglish. For providing such generalization, a wide range of data needs to be dealt with.
In addition, this investigation needs to be extended to other group of people in order to
verify their spoken features as well. Nevertheless, this study, at least, takes an initiative to
present a rudimentary picture of contact induced language change in Bangla which is
believed to open a new phase for the study of Banglish.
Coding, Analysis & Results
These analyses are done on three significant features: noun modification, compound verb
construction and phonological modification.
Noun Modification
Various nominal structures are coded from the obtained data. These structures include
various features: reference marking, pluralization, word order, case marking, etc.
Reference Marking
In English, the reference marking includes the feature of marking definiteness of noun,
and so variety of markers are used for indicating indefinite and definite references
(Givon, 1993, cited in Samar & Meechan, 1998). Moreover, all these markers usually
precede nouns in English utterances. On the other hand, as Bangla and English have
distinct syntactic pattern, the determiners ta or ti in Bangla, termed as classifiers, are
preceded by the noun, and these can also be added to numbers, quantifiers, deictic noun
phrase in the same way which precede the noun (Thompson, 2012). Other reference
marking, such as indefinite articles, distributives, demonstratives, possessives and
indefinites usually precede nouns. Nouns are also found without any reference marking.
Therefore, the attested English origin nouns usually take Bangla reference marking in
mixed context, and follow the syntactic rule of Bangla. Therefore, if the unattested
English origin nouns go through the same noun modification process by taking the
Bangla reference marking, they are perfectly integrated, and can be considered borrowed
nouns. For example:
i. Attested English origin noun in mixed context of Banglish-mixed context:
1. tumi keno class ta faki dile? (Radio Foorti, 2014)
you.2S. why class the miss do.2.Pst
Why did you miss the class?
ii. Unattested English origin noun in Banglish-mixed context:
2. a. uni oi letter ta likhen ni, na? (Radio Aamar, 2014)
you.2S.Hon. that letter. the.Art write.2.Pst.Hon.Neg. no
He did not write that letter, did he?
b. amr sms ta ki pora jay na? (Radio Aamar, 2014)
my.1.Gen sms the what read.Perf. go.. no
‘Isn’t it possible to read my sms?’
c. Accha sothik option ti pathate hobe. (Radio Foorti, 2014)
152 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
Ok. right option the.Art. send.Inf be.2.Fut
Ok. You have to send the right option’.
iii. Bangla noun modification in unmixed context:
3. a. gaan ta bhalo lage na tomar? (Radio Aamar, 2014)
song. the.Art good feel.Inf no you.Dat
‘Don’t you like the song?’
b. tomar bondhuti kothay ekhon?(Radio Today, 2014)
you.2.Gen friend the.Art where now
Where is your friend now?
c. English noun in unmixed English context:
4. The lady has arrived.
In the sentences in (1) & (2), the Bangla grammar of noun modification by using
reference marking is followed for both the attested/listed and unattested/unlisted English
origin nouns in mixed contexts. Moreover, the same grammar is followed in case of
Bangla noun in unmixed Bangla context (3). In addition, the utterance in (4) shows the
pattern of reference marking in English which is not followed in any of the contexts in
Bangla. We can consider this to be an indication that all these lone English-origin nouns,
attested or unattested, which follow the Bangla reference system, should be considered
borrowed nouns. This shows clear evidence of morphological integration of English
origin nouns in Bangla-English mixed context: Banglish.
Case Marking
The case system refers to the marking system of the nominal phrases in order to reflect
their relation to the head (Blake, 1994), cited in Lahiri, 2011). In English, there is no
specific case marker; actually English almost has lost its case marking system. Except the
three statuses of pronouns and possessive case marker, there is hardly any marking.
Whereas in Bangla, there are extensive case markers in order to indicate different kinds
of relation of the nouns to the other parts of the sentence. In Bangla, case markers
distinguish between animate and inanimate objects by using distinct markers for both
classes. There are some specific markers to show the different cases, such as accusative,
genitive, locative and instrumental case (Thompson, 2012).
i. Attested English origin nouns in Banglish context.
5. a. classer pore amake phone dio. (Genetive case) (Radio Today, 2014)
class.Gen after me.Acc phone give
Call me after the class is over.
b. ei muhurte amader studior ghorite somoy bela barota.(Radio Foorti, 2014)
this moment.Loc our.Gen studio.Gen clock.Loc time day twelve.
At this moment, the clock at the studio shows it’s twelve in the noon.
ii. Unattested English origin noun in Banglish.
Tanzina Tahereen 153
6. a. ekta gaan o royeche amader playlist e. (Locative case) (Radio Foorti, 2014)
One.the song.Emp stay our.Gen playlist.Loc
There is also a song in our playlist.
b. eta ekta movier gaan. (Genitive case) (Radio Today, 2014)
this one.the movie.Gen song.
This is a song from a movie.
c. tomar friend ke dako. (Accusative case) (Radio Foorti, 2014)
your.Gen friend.Acc call.
Call your friend.
d. Bangla noun in unmixed context
7. a. maa -ke dakte parbe? (Accusative case) (Radio Foorti, 2014)
Mother.Acc call.Inf can.2.Fut
Can you call mother?
b. eta amar babar boi.(Radio Foorti, 2014)
this my.Gen baba.Gen book.
This is my father’s book.
e. English noun in English context
8. a. I hate your friends. (Possessive case)
b. This is Kate’s book. (Possessive case)
In the sentences in (5) & (6), we notice that the listed and unlisted English words are
perfectly marked by the case markers in every situation according to the case marking
system in Bangla. There is no exception in any single noun which has followed English
case marking. Bangla has different accusative case markers for animate and inanimate
object: ke for animate or human, and ta for inanimate object. The use of ke is shown
in (6.c). So, these sentences in (6) show the perfect integration of unattested English
origin nouns like all other attested English origin nouns in (5). The same grammar is also
followed in (7) in unmixed Bangla context. So, this perfect integration of
unattested/unlisted English origin nouns can justify their status as borrowed nouns. Those
ambiguous English origin items which are not integrated like are considered code-
switched elements. For example:
9. Ami wish korte chai tinjon ke: amar mom, Farhad’s mom and my baby’s mom.
I wish do.Inf want three pople.Acc: my mom, Farhad’s mother, and my baby’s mom.
I want to wish three people: my mom, Farhad’s mom and my baby’s mom’. (Radio
Aamar, 2014)
In example (9), the use of English grammar can be seen though it is an English Bangla
mixed context. So, it is code-switching not borrowing.
154 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
Word Order
Samar and Meechan (1998) use word order as a criterion to distinguish between these
borrowed items and code switched items. Bangla has a different word order than that
English has. Bangla follows SOV pattern whereas English follows SVO. In English
utterances, VP is head initial (Lahiri, 2011), on the other hand, in Bangla it is head final.
Therefore, while using the English origin noun, attested or unattested, speakers do not use
English word order pattern, rather they follow Bangla syntactic pattern with appropriate
case markers. Except the inter-sentential code-switching, every single English origin
word follows the Bangla (ML) syntactic pattern. Bangla allows this kind of integration
perfectly as it is a flexible language (flexible word order), and as the nouns go through
the appropriate modification process. There is no single evidence found where English
word order is followed while using unattested English origin words. This criterion is only
applicable to single English origin word not for phrase or clause. For example:
i. Attested English origin word in Banglish: mixed situation:
10. tahole uni kon mobile theke amader ke sms korchen? (Sub + obj+verb) (Radio
Foorti, 2015)
So he.3.Hon which mobile from us.Acc. sms do.3.Hon. Pres.Perf
Then from which mobile did he send us sms?
ii. Unattested English origin word in Banglish: mixed situation:
11. eta amar collection e ache. (Object + Location+ Verb) (Radio Aamar, 2014)
this my.Gen collection.Loc has
I have it in my collection.
iii. Bangla word in unmixed condition:
12. eta amar shongrohe ache. (Object +Location+ Verb) (Radio Aamar, 2014)
this my.1S.Gen collection.Loc has
I have it in my collection.
iv. English word in English unmixed context:
13. He kept the book on the table. (Subject+ verb+ object+ Location)
The sentence in (10) shows how the attested English origin word follows Bangla word
order, and (11) shows the same level of integration with the word order of Bangla even
though the English origin noun is unattested here. The sentences in (12) and (13)
represent Bangla and English word order in unmixed conditions respectively. So, the
adaptability of the English origin words with the word order of Bangla is perfectly
consistent. These English origin word, attested or unattested, are completely used in
Bangla syntactic pattern in Banglish as Bangla is ML (Matrix Language) in this variety.
Therefore, this consistency of the word order of the unattested items with the two other
Bangla contexts can evidence their new status as borrowed items.
Tanzina Tahereen 155
Pluralization
The next diagnostic criterion is plural marking. There are limited numbers of strategies
for pluralizing borrowed nouns in the languages which have pluralization marking at
morphological level (Matras, 2009; cited in Roseano, 2013). Roseano categorizes three
groups of strategies which pluralize nouns: oikomorphological solutions,
xenomorphological and allomorphological solutions (2013). He adds, oikomorphological
strategy which involves the highest level of morphological integration, refers to the
strategy of pluralization of borrowed nouns by using the same morphemes which are used
for the unmixed Bangla item. In the xenomorphological pluralization which has the
lowest level of morphological integration, the lone noun takes the inflectional
morphology of its own language, and forms a new morphological class. And the third
strategy, allomorphological one has intermediate level of integration, and forms plural
forms of the lone words by involving different other processes, except the morphological
inflection of the recipient and donor languages (2013).
Therefore, the level of integration of English origin nouns can be understood through the
strategy of pluralization in Bangla. Both oikomorphological and xenomorphological
pluralization are found in the data where English origin nouns take both English plural
morpheme ‘s’ and Bangla plural morpheme “ra” or “der”. In order to distinguish between
code-switching and borrowing, these two pluralization strategies can be significant
criteria Therefore, the unattested English origin words which go through the
oikomorphological process are considered to have the highest level of integration, and
thus these can be borrowed items. On the other hand, unattested words which go through
the xenomorphological process are considered to have the lowest level of integration.
Therefore, these are code-switched items.
i. Attested English origin nouns in Banglish-mixed context:
14. a. tomader classgulo keno hocche na jani na. (Radio Aamar, 2014)
you.2.Gen class.Pl why happen.Inf no know no.
‘I don’t know why your classes are not being held’.
b. numbergulo tomader mobile e chole jabe. (Radio Aamar, 2014)
number.Pl you.2.Gen mobile.Loc go.Inf go.2.Fut
The numbers will be sent to your mobile.
d. sobar passport gulo kere nite hobe. (Radio Aamar, 2014)
all.Gen passport.Pl snatch.Inf take be.Fut
‘Everybody’s passport should be snatched away’.
ii. Unattested English origin words in Banglish-mixed context:
15. a. e deshe bhalo bhalo company ache. (Radio Aamar, 2014)
this country.Loc good good company be.Pre.
There are many good companies in this country.
b. awkward situation e porte hoy student der. (Radio Today, 2014)
156 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
awkward situation.Loc fall.Inf. be.Pres. student.der
Students are pushed into awkward condition’.
iii. Bangla plual nouns in unmixed situation:
16. a. ami eke eke naam gulo pore jai. (Radio Today, 2014)
I.1S. one one name.Pl read.Inf go.
I am reading the names one by one’.
b. onek onek dhonnobad apnake. (Radio Aamar, 2014)
many many thank you.2.Hon
Many thanks to you.
iv. Unattested English origin words following xenomorphological strategy in
Bangla
17. ami apnader janabo amar ki ki plans ki ki hopes
I you.2P. HON know.Caus.Fut my.Poss. what what plan.PL what what hope.Pl ar
ki ki dreams royeche. (Radio Today, 2014)
and what what dream.pl. have.1.Pres.Perf
I will let you know how many plans, hopes and dreams I have.
v. English words in English unmixed context
18. These are the pictures of that day.
So, the sentences in (14) shows how attested English origin nouns ‘class’, ‘number’ and
‘passport’ are deeply incorporated in Bangla context by following oikomorphological
strategy. Similarly, the sentences in (15) show the same level of integration of unattested
English origin words ‘country’ and ‘student’ in Bangla-English mixed context through
the oikomorphological pluralization. Moreover, the sentence in (16) is an example of
pluralization of other Bangla words in unmixed Bangla context which has the similar
pattern. On the other hand, in (17), all the unattested English origin nouns ‘plan’,
‘dream’, ‘hope’ take English plural marker, like the word ‘picture’ in the sentence (18)
that shows English pluralization in unmixed English context. Thus, the sentence (17)
shows the lowest level of integration. Therefore, the unattested English origin words
which show the same level of integration like the attested English origin words in mixed
situation can be considered borrowed items, and the unattested English origin words that
show the lowest level of integration are considered code-switched items.
Verb Constructions
Though Bangla has single verb construction, there exist compound and conjunct verb
constructions which are frequent as well. In these two kinds of verb constructions, there
are two significant parts: pole and vector. The main item is called pole, and the attached
item is vector, but they always refer to one single meaning together. The polar part
always constructs the semantics of the verb (Bhattacharja, 2010). In Banglish, English
origin words are inserted in these constructions. Conjunct verbs consist of a verb in
vector position along with another category of words except a verb in polar position.
Tanzina Tahereen 157
Moreover, compound verbs consist of two or three verbs together (Bhattacharja, 2010).
Mysken (2000) suggests four ways of how a new verb from one language can be
integrated in another language: (i) insertion of a new verb into a position corresponding
to a native verb; (ii) adjoining of a new verb to a helping verb; (iii) inclusion of a new
verb as a nominalized complement to a causative helping verb; and (iv) incorporation of a
verb as an infinitive and complement of a native auxiliary (cited in Stammers & Deuchar,
2011, p. 635-636).
Conjunct Verb Constructions
The pole in a conjunct verb of Banglish is taken from English origin words (noun,
adjective, adverb, preposition), and the vector is a Bangla verb chosen from a closed set
of verbs, such as kora (to do), howa (to be), deya (to give), neya (to take), etc
(Bhattacharja, 2010). For example:
i. Attested English origin word in Belglish-mixed context:
19. tumi kal office korbe? (Radio Today, 2014)
you.2S tomorrow office do.Fut
Will you work tomorrow?
ii. Unattested English origin words in Banglish-mixed context:
20. a. tumi jano amar bhaiyer kalke accident hoyeche? (Radio Foorti, 2014)
you.2S know my.Pos brother.Gen. yesterday accident be.Pres.Perf
Do you know my brother had an accident yesterday?
b. tomra group kore kotha bolte chao? (Radio Foorti, 2014)
you.Pl group do.Inf word talk.Inf want
Do you want to talk in group?
iii. Bangla word in unmixed Bangla context:
21. a. sobai ekhane durniti kore. (Radio Today, 2014)
all here.Loc corruption do.3.Pres
All are involved in corruption here’.
b. kara puro soptaho dhore opekkha korechen? (Radio Foorti, 2014)
who.Pl. whole week hold wait do.Pres.Perf
Who have waited for the whole week?
c. se kukur ke lathi marlo. (Radio Aamar, 2014)
he dog.Acc kick give.Pst
He kicked the dog.
iv. English words in unmixed English context:
22. a. He feeds the buffalos.
b. He is talking about it.
158 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
In the above sentences in (19) and (20), the attested (office) and unattested English origin
words (accident, group) are used as the pole of the conjunct verbs, and the inflected
korbe, hoyeche, kore, korechen, marlo, selected from the closed set, are combined with
the poles as vector verbs. These examples show that both attested and unattested words
behave in the same way in Banglish context, and there is no exception observed in the
data. They are equally integrated in the conjunct verb to act like a single verb, and the
meaning is mainly contributed by the poles (English origin words). In fact, the conjunct
verb construction in unmixed Bangla context is same in (21). This shows how consistent
their integration is. The English origin words in conjunct verb, attested and unattested,
perfectly perform their syntactic and semantic functions of the poles. Moreover, the
English verb construction which is shown in (22) is not similar to any of the
constructions presented above.
Furthermore, as it is already mentioned, Bangla is a head final language and English is a
head initial, in the utterances (19, 20), all these Banglish verbs manifest the head final
syntactic pattern not the head initial (Bhattacharja, 2010). In addition, the level of
integration can also be explained through the case marking system involved in these
sentences. The case marker -er which refers to genitive case in Bangla, is added to a noun
here to refer to the connection with ‘accident.
Compound Verb (CV) Constructions
Compound verb construction usually consists of two verbs: polar verb (V1) and vector
verb (V2) which can also be termed as light verb and full verb respectively. V1 is chosen
from a wide range of verb groups that take either conjunctive participle e or the
infinitive form-te, and V2 is chosen from a selected closed set of verbs that carries
inflections (Bhattacharja, 2010). Significantly, all the vector verbs are not compatible
with all the polar verbs in CV constructions. Both of the verbs combined together
construct one single compound verb which takes the meaning of the polar verb, and
vector verb does not contribute to the semantics of CV, rather contributes to the
construction and carries the syntactic information (Chatterjee, 2012). Moreover, in
Banglish, a new feature is observed in CV construction. The English origin words are
combined with those two verbs but still behave like one verb. There are two kinds of
compound verbs found in Banglish: (a) compound verb with V1 (polar) as English origin
verb, and V2 as Bangla verb chosen from a closed group of verbs; (b) compound verb
with V1 (polar) as English origin verb, both V2 and V3 from closed group of Bangla
verbs. V3 acts like a vector verb, and V2 takes the participles or infinitives. These three
verbs which are combined together to form a single verb, actually have specific single
function (Chatterjee, 2012) in the syntactic pattern and semantic meaning construction
(Chatterjee, 2012)
i. Attested English origin verb in Banglish-mixed context:
23. amra ebar bhot dite parlam na. (Radio Today, 2014)
we.1Pl this time vote give can.Pst no
‘We couldn’t vote this time’.
ii. Unattested English origin word in Banglish-mixed context:
Tanzina Tahereen 159
24. a. apnake ekhoni ekta sms send korte hobe. (Radio Today, 2014)
you.2.Hon now.Emp. one sms send do.Inf . be.2.Fut
You have to send an sms right now.
b. janle ami ekkhoni play kore ditam. (Radio Foorti, 2014)
know.Prt I now.Emp play do.Prt. give.1.Pst
If I know, I could play it right now.
c. tomake type korte hobe. (Radio Foorti, 2014)
you.2.ACC.CM type do.Inf. be.2.Fut
You have to type.
d. ganer jonno request koro taratari. (Radio Foorti, 2014)
Song.Gen for request do.Pre. quick
Request for a song quickly.
iii. Bangla compound verb in unmixed Bangla context:
25. a. ekhane tader oneker naam bheshe utheche. (Radio Today, 2014)
here.Loc their.Poss. many.Gen appear.Prt up.Pres.Perf
The names of many of them have appeared here.
b. kara puro soptaho dhore opekkha korechen? (Radio Foorti, 2014)
who.Pl. whole week hold wait do.Pres.Perf
Who have waited for the whole week?
iv. English compound verb in unmixed English context:
26. He will give away all his books to someone poor.
In (30), bhot dite parlam na is a compound verb with attested English origin verb (vote),
and in (31) send korte hobe, play kore ditam, type korte hobe and request koro show how
unattested English origin verbs are perfectly inserted into the compound verb
construction by maintaining the original Bangla syntactic pattern. In fact, an English
origin verb in the polar position plays its assigned role perfectly. This integration
evidences that the unattested English origin verbs integrated in compound verbs in
Banglish are borrowed items like attested English origin verbs. Moreover, the sentences
(32) in unmixed Bangla context present a good ground to draw a comparison between the
compound verb constructions with and without English origin verbs. This comparison
shows how perfectly the unattested English origin verbs are integrated. Therefore, these
can be categorized as borrowed items not code-switched.
Phonological Integration
Though phonological integration is not a strong criterion to identify the status of an
English origin word in Banglish, listed and unlisted English origin items run through
these phonological changes. Even the code-switched words often are pronounced in
modified pronunciation similar to first language pronunciation. In this spoken variety of
160 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
Bangla, many English origin words are pronounced in a modified nativized sound, and
some sounds are pronounced carefully with the original pronunciation. So, the modified
sounds can be identified as unlisted borrowing, and the more originally pronounced
words can be identified as code switched. However, this criterion is also not considered
as a reliable factor as influence of first language on pronunciation of second language is
frequent. For example:
i. Attested English origin words in Banglish:
27. a. sob pulishder ke thik pothe ante hobe. (Radio Aamar, 2014)
all police.Pl.Accu. right way.Loc bring.Inf be.Fut
We have to bring in all the police to the right path.
b. tebiler upor boshe koto kotha tader. (Radio Foorti, 2014)
table.Gen on sit.Prt a lot words they.Gen
Sitting on the table, they were talking about many things.
ii. Unattested English origin words in Banglish-mixed context:
28. a. tini darun darun shob gaan /kmpz/ korechen amader jonno.
he.3S.Hon wonderful wonderful all song compose do.3.Hon.Pres.perf us.Gen for
He has composed many wonderful songs for us. (Radio, Foorti, 2014)
b. ektu pore apnar gaan ta /ple/ hoye jabe. (Radio Foorti, 2014)
while after you.2.Hon.Gen song.the play be.Prt go.Fut
You song will be played after a while.
c. tar /bebi/r maa she nijei.(Radio Aamar, 2014)
her baby.Gen mother she herself.Emp
She herself is the mother of her baby.
In (34), the listed borrowed words pulish (/puliʃ/), tebil (/tebil/) are English origin words
but the pronunciation is slightly modified and nativized, and included in Bangla
vocabulary. In (30), vote (/vƏut/) has been pronounced as /bht/. In (35), the unlisted
English origin words are also slightly modified, and pronounced according to Bangla
phonology. In (31), compose (/kəmˈpəʊz/) is pronounced as / kmpz/, play (/plei/) as
/ple/ and baby (/beibi/) as /bebi/ which are close to Bangla sounds. Bangla does not have
/Ə/ sound, and so this sound is easily pronounced as Bangla /o/ sound. Moreover,
diphthong /ei/ is easily influenced by /e/ sound in Bangla. So, based on this phonological
integration some unattested items can be considered borrowed words.
On the other hand, an opposite scenario is also observed in Banglish. In some cases, the
speakers try to pronounce the Bangla i (/r/) as retroflex /r/ in English and j (/l/) as dark
/l/ in English whereas these two sounds are absent in Bangla.
Tanzina Tahereen 161
Discussion
From the analyzed data, unattested English origin words in Banglish context are found
completely integrated like the listed English origin words in Bangla or Banglish.
Moreover, it is found that English origin words are behaving more like Bangla words
rather than English words in English context. They follow Bangla morphological,
syntactical, and phonological patterns perfectly. However, in terms of phonological and
morphological factors, English influences are also found in some words which can be
considered as code-switching.
In terms of attaching reference marking, all the unattested and attested English origin
nouns behave in the same way in otherwise Bangla contexts, and this feature is also
similar with the Bangla noun modification through reference marking in unmixed
context. If we consider the word order, the same consistency is observed. Though English
and Bangla have distinct word order, English origin words are compatibility inserted into
Bangla syntactic patterns after going through the necessary modification. As code
switching is an indispensible part of Banglish, and intra- sentential code-switching is
frequent in it, a variety of unattested English origin words are found which behave
perfectly like any other attested English origin words or Bangla words in unmixed
contexts. Though this version of language is emerging with Bangla-English code-
switching situation, some English origin words are found highly integrated into Bangla
morphological and syntactic patterns, and behaved like an integrated part of Bangla.
Consequently, borrowing occurs as well.
Furthermore, the process of pluralization reflected in the English origin words
modification shows the status of those words in Bangla-English mixed context. As long
as the items are not highly integrated into the language, these are considered code-
switched. The highest level of integration showed by the unattested English origin items
turns their status into borrowed items.
In addition, the distinct nature of CV construction shows a complex syntactic feature of
Bangla verb. An English origin verb being integrated into such complex CV construction
corresponding to a native verb (Mysken, 2000, cited in Stammers & Deuchar, 2011) is
undisputedly a significant criterion to identify the status of attested and unattested
English origin items. Taking position of a pole in conjunct or compound verb
constructions, performing the role of a head of the CV and contributing to the semantics
indicate their level of integration in Banglish. So, explaining these patterns as code-
mixing is not the best explanation anymore for Banglish.
Conclusion
Considering the degree of integration of English origin single items, attested or
unattested, as a principle to identify the status of these ambiguous items, and to deny the
general interpretation of these items as code-mixing are the main focus of this study.
Though the data is not enough to claim a sustained actuality about the status of these
unattested English origin items, these analyses, at least, should contribute to the study of
code-switching and borrowing. Banglish, this urban spoken variety of Bangla, provides a
perfect context for conducting such contact language study. The short span of this paper
and limited scope of collecting extensive data do not allow an appropriate stance for
162 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
conducting a quantitative analysis of this issue. As a result, it has not become possible to
show how frequent these unattested English origin lone items are in comparison to
attested English origin items in Banglish. However, through the obtained data and limited
analysis, the status of unattested English origin items is attempted to identify by
comparing their level of integration in Banglish context with that of attested English
origin items. Moreover, in order to confirm the perfect integration, the use of the same
features is also shown in unmixed Bangla and English contexts. Almost in all cases, the
unattested English origin words are found behaving in the same way the attested English
origin words in mixed contexts and Bangla words in unmixed context behave. Whenever
the unattested English origin items are found perfectly integrated in Bangla context, they
show the similar patterns of attested English origin items. This comparison is always
extended by showing the use of the same features in unmixed Bangla contexts and
English contexts which has made the comparison more authentic and supportive to draw
a result that these unattested English origin items are borrowed, not code-switched
anymore. Finally, the result mainly shows how the level of morphological, syntactical
and phonological integration helps to distinguish between borrowed items and code-
switched items. Moreover, claiming these unattested English origin items as borrowed
items in Banglish has advanced the stance of Banglish in the study of contact induced
language change.
References
Alam, S. (2006). Code-Mixing In Bangladesh: A Case Study Of Non-Government White-Collar
Service Holders And Professionals. Asian Affairs, 28(04), 52-70.
Banu, R., & Sussex, R. (2001). Code-switching in Bangladesh. English Today, 17(02), 51-61.
Bhattacharja, S. (2010). Benglish Verbs: a Case of Code-Mixing in Bengali.
Chatterjee, T. (2012). Bengali-English codeswitching: A focus on the third verb in bilingual
compound verbs. Sociolinguistics Symposium 19 Conference Abstract, ID 917.
Gries, S. (2004). Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English.
Linguistics, 42(03), 639-667.
Haspelmath, M. (2009). Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In Loanwords in the world's
languages a comparative handbook. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hosain, M. (2014). Code-mixing in the FM Radio in Bangladesh: A Sociolinguistic Observation.
IIUC STUDIES 10 & 11, 99-110.
Lahiri, B. (2011). Case marking of Asamiya in comparison with Bangla for animate and inanimate
objects. New Delhi: Parimal Publishers.
Manfredi, S., Siimeone-Senelle, M., & Tosco, M (2015). Language contact, borrowing and
codeswitching. (in production) In Amina Mettouchi, Martine Vanhove and Dominique
Caubet (eds.), Corpus-based Studies of lesser-described Languages: the CorpAfroAs
Corpus of spoken AfroAsiatic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meechan, M., & Poplack, S. (1995). Orphan categories in bilingual discourse: Adjectivization
strategies in Wolof-French and Fongbe-French. Language Variation andChange 7: 169-
194.
MyersScotton, C. (1992). Comparing codeswitching and borrowing. Journal of Multilingual &
Multicultural Development, 13(1-2), 19-39.
Tanzina Tahereen 163
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Poplack, S. (2001). Code-switching (linguistic). International encyclopedia of the social and
behavioral sciences, 2062-2065.
Poplack, S. (2012). What does the Nonce Borrowing Hypothesis hypothesize?
Bilingualism:Language and Cognition 15(3), 644-648
Poplack, S., & Meechan, M. (1998). How languages fit together in code-mixing. International
Journal of Bilingualism,2 (2), 127138.
Poplack, S., Sankoff, D., & Miller, C. (1988). The social correlates and linguistic processes of
lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26 (1), 47104.
Poplack, S., & Dion, N. (2012). Myths and facts about loanword development. Language
Variation and Change, 24(3), 279-315.
Roseano, P. (2013). Can morphological borrowing be an effect of codeswitching? Evidence from
the inflectional morphology of borrowed nouns in Friulian. Probus, 26(1), 1-57.
Samar, R., & Meechan, M. (1998). The null theory of code-switching versus the nonce borrowing
hypothesis: Testing the fit in Persian-English bilingual discourse. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 2(2), 203-219.
Stammers, J., & Deuchar, M. Testing the nonce borrowing hypothesis. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728911000381.
Thompson, H. R. (2012). Bengali (Vol. 18). John Benjamins Publishing.
Thomason, S. and Kaufman, T., (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics.
Berkley:University of California Press.
(2014). Morning Express. Dhaka: Radio Today
(2014). Thursday Night Saga. Dhaka: Radio Today
(2014). Foorti Unilimited. Dhaka: Radio Foorti
(2014). Dhaka: Radio Aamar
164 Spectrum, Volume 12, 2016
Appendix 1
Abbreviation
Adv Adverb
Art Article
Acc Accusative case
CV Compound verb
Cl Classifier
Dat Dative case
Emp Emphatic
Fut Future tense
Gen Genitive
Hon Honorific
Inf Infinitive
Loc Locative case
Neg Negative
PP Perfect participle
Pst Past tense
Pres Present tense
Pres.Perf Present perfect tense
Prt Participle
S Singular
SVO Subject-Verb-Object
SOV Subject-Object-Verb
V2 Light verb in CV
V1 Full verb in CV
1 1st Person
2 2nd Person
3 3rd Person
... The inadequacy of datasets, particularly for Emotion Detection, is evident in Bengali, a language with limited resources [ 1 ]. This challenge is worsened by the widespread use of Banglish, an English-character variation of Bengali, further restricting dataset availability [ 2 ]. Emotion detection in low-resource languages like Bengali faces several unique challenges. ...
Article
Full-text available
The ever-evolving global landscape of communication, driven by Information Technology advancements, underscores the importance of emotion detection in natural language processing. However, challenges persist in interpreting emotions within linguistically diverse contexts, notably in low-resource languages like Bengali, compounded by the emergence of Banglish. To address this gap, we present “Bengali & Banglish,” an extensive dataset comprising 80,098 labelled samples across six emotion classes. Our dataset fills a void in fine-grained emotion classification for Bengali and pioneers in emotion detection in Banglish. We achieve significant performance metrics through meticulous annotation and rigorous evaluation, including a weighted F1 score of 71.30% for Bengali and 64.59% for Banglish using BanglaBERT. Also, our dataset facilitates Bengali-to-Banglish Machine Translation, contributing to the advancement of language processing models. Furthermore, our dataset demonstrates a high Cohen's Kappa score of 93.5%, affirming the reliability and consistency of our annotations. This research underscores the importance of linguistic diversity in NLP and provides a valuable resource for enhancing Emotion Detection capabilities in Bengali and Banglish across digital platforms.
... Code-switching and alike linguistic phenomena are frequently occurring phenomena in multilingual societies (Martínez, 2013;Kunarawong, 2014;Tahereen, 2016;Bassiouney, 2017;Ezeh et al., 2022). These linguistic phenomena become a part of the sociolinguistic patterns of multilingual communities (Shay, 2015;Bashir & Musavir, 2022), and thus they are quite common throughout the world (Alkhresheh, 2015;Mabule, 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates the various societal values and designs for which code-switching, hybridization, and echo words are employed by the characters of Shazaf Fatima Haider’s novel How it Happened. A methodological framework for this investigation has been adapted from Coulmas (2005), Myers-Scotton (1993; 1996; 2006), Albakray and Hancock (2008), and Thornborrow (2004). The results reveal that code-switching is a purposive and preconceived literary device employed by the bilingual author to show the construction and depiction of various cultural, social, and religious identities and acculturation. The study concludes that code-switching in the selected text portrays the communal customs of contingent social order along with demonstrating the author’s ingenious and artistic caliber.
... The idea of a contested relationship between English and Bengali is further relevant to an understanding of various aspects of existing linguistic practices in Bangladesh. Among urban-centric, Englisheducated youth, there is a growing tendency of "high degree of codemixing between English and Bangla", characterized by "anglicized and affected pronunciation of Bangla words" (Basu, 2016, p. 59, see also Sultana, 2012aSultana, , 2012bSultana, , 2014Tahereen, 2016). This distinct type of bilingual practice has become colloquially known as Banglish or Bangreji, and has massively fueled the public debate. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
The research reported here is an investigation of bilingual instruction in Bangladeshi schools. In particular, the thesis explores how schooling takes place when a second language is used as a medium of instruction to teach subject content. The study is based on a corpus of 44 hours of video recordings from real-life classroom interaction at two Bangladeshi schools in two metropolitan cities. The age range of the students is 9 to 13 years. Using multimodal conversation analysis, the thesis analyzes the participants’ practice – as it emerges through mundane classroom activities – and thereby examines participants’ language use in the presence of an existing language policy. The findings show how everyday instructional activities are accomplished in classrooms, especially the pedagogical focus on clarifying subject content and vocabulary. It further highlights that the interrelation between classroom interaction and language policy is informed by the participants’ use of embodied resources and the surrounding material ecology. The dissertation contributes to the growing literature on social interaction in bilingual classrooms and the wider field of bilingual and multilingual pedagogy.
Article
Full-text available
This article investigates how morphological borrowing can take place in situations of language contact, and which factors play a role in this process. The author proposes that synthetic languages can use three strategies to form the plural of borrowed nouns and adjectives: oikomorphological, xenomorphological, and allomorphological. Data collected for varieties of Friulian in contact with different languages show that borrowed nouns can undergo all three types of morphological integration. The use of the xenomorphological strategy, which consists of forming the plural as in the donor language, is becoming widespread through generations of speakers of Friulian living in Italy. Basing on a comparison with the inflection of nouns and adjectives that Friulian has borrowed directly and indirectly from Italian and other languages, the author suggests that, in bilingual communities, the insertional codeswitching of inflected nouns and adjectives could be the "Trojan horse" that makes possible inflectional morphological borrowing.
Article
Full-text available
This study traces the diachronic trajectory and synchronic behavior of English-origin items in Quebec French over a real-time period of 61 years. We test three standard assumptions about such foreign incorporations: (1) they increase in frequency; (2) they originate as code-switches and are gradually integrated into recipient-language grammar; and (3) the processes underlying code-switching and borrowing are the same. Results do not support the assumptions. Few other-language items persist, let alone increase. Linguistic integration is abrupt, not gradual. Speakers consistently distinguish lone other-language items from multiword fragments on each of five linguistic diagnostics tested. They borrow the former, and code-switch the latter. Code-switches are not converted into borrowings; instead the decision to code-switch or borrow is made at the moment the other-language item is accessed. We explore the implications of these findings for understanding the processes by which other-language incorporations achieve the status of native items and their consequences for theories of code-switching and borrowing.
Article
Full-text available
In a climate where many researchers are content to characterize the linguistic manifestations of language contact using ad hoc criteria or anecdotal data, Jonathan Stammers and Margaret Deuchar (S&D) are to be commended for undertaking an empirical study with speakers, data and an accountable analysis. S&D (this issue) are right to say that the classification of lone other-language items (LOLIs) has been dogging the study of code-switching for decades. They use an interesting diagnostic, soft mutation, novel in this field, at ypologically distinct language pair, and quantitative methodology to test the Nonce Borrowing Hypothesis (NBH). They find that soft mutation on Englishorigin verbs increases as a function of dictionary attestation (“listedness”), and frequency of occurrence. They interpret their findings to “unequivocally refute” the NBH(undersectionheading:“Discussion”),andconclude that the “category of nonce borrowings is redundant” (under section headings:“Discussion” and “Conclusion”). Not surprisingly, we disagree that this nullifies the NBH or disposes of the phenomenon of nonce borrowing itself. On the contrary, their results are consistent with those that have emerged from the nonce borrowing studies they critique, to wit: morphosyntactic integration of BORROWED items is largely abrupt and categorical, whereas phonological integration is often gradual and highly variable.
Book
This book is the first work to address the question of what kinds of words get borrowed in a systematic and comparative perspective. It studies lexical borrowing behavior on the basis of a world-wide sample of 40 languages, both major languages and minor languages, and both languages with heavy borrowing and languages with little lexical influence from other languages. The book is the result of a five-year project bringing together a unique group of specialists of many different languages and areas. The introductory chapters provide a general up-to-date introduction to language contact at the word level, as well as a presentation of the project's methodology. All the chapters are based on samples of 1000-2000 words, elicited by a uniform meaning list of 1460 meanings. The combined database, comprising over 70,000 words, is published online at the same time as the book is published. For each word, information about loanword status is given in the database, and the 40 case studies in the book describe the social and historical contact situations in detail.The final chapter draws general conclusions about what kinds of words tend to get borrowed, what kinds of word meanings are particularly resistant to borrowing, and what kinds of social contact situations lead to what kinds of borrowing situations. © 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin, Germany. All rights reserved.
Article
This paper deals with code-mixing used in the FM radio of Bangladesh. Code-mixing, a term in sociolinguistics, refers to the hybridization of two languages in a bilingual context. Of late, in the FMs of Bangladesh, the Radio Jockeys and the callers have frequently been mixing Bengali and English codes in their various programs. It is supposed to be the liberalization of the air waves that leads to the shifting of language in broadcasting by the RJs. In this paper, the researcher intends to extrapolate the motivations for code-mixing, and see whether the specific extralinguistic factors contribute to such code-mixing. Data from naturally occurring announcements and conversations were recorded from the four main radio stations, and then transcribed into English for analysis.IIUC Studies Vol.10 & 11 December 2014: 99-110
Chapter
This article gives a brief description of the Bengali language, including its spelling and pronunciation, word formation, sentence structure, and some grammatical features that are typical for Bengali.
Article
In this article, we show how grammar can account for Benglish verbs, a particular type of complex predicate, which are constituted of an English word and a Bengali verb (e.g. /EksiDenT kOra/ 'to have an accident', /in kOra/ 'to get/come/put in' or /kOnfuz kOra/ 'to confuse'). We analyze these verbs in the light of a couple of models (e.g. Kageyama, 1991; Lieber, 1992; Matsumoto, 1996) which claim that complex predicates are necessarily formed in syntax. However, Benglish verbs like /in kOra/ or /kOnfuz kOra/ are problematic for these approaches because it is unclear how preposition in or flexional verb confuse can appear as the arguments of the verb /kOra/ 'to do' in an underlying syntactic structure. We claim that all Benglish verbs can be satisfactorily handled in Morphology in the light of Whole Word Morphology (Ford et al., 1997 and Singh, 2006).