Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T13:19:39.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The communicative competence of bilinguals: some hypotheses and suggestions for research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

John J. Gumperz
John J. Gumperz
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A model for the description of bilingual speech is proposed which focuses on the linguistic and social constraints governing the speaker's selection of variables within a single complex linguistic repertoire. The model will be tested with field data from bilingual communities in India and Austria and results will be compared with relevant data on American English. The traditional dichotomy between bilingual and monolingual behavior is discarded and differences between the communities will be described in terms of the level of linguistic structure at which variables appear, the rules governing their co-occurrence and the social meanings they communicate. The goal is to contribute to our knowledge of the linguistic and social nature of code alternation to provide new insights into communication processes in ethnically diverse societies, and to lay the basis for improved educational strategies.

Type
Reports on Research in Progress
Information
Language in Society , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 1972 , pp. 143 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Argoff, D., Gumperz, J., & Johnson, C. (1971). Syntactic convergence and multilingualism. Typescript.Google Scholar
Black, M. B. (1969). Eliciting folk taxonomies in Ojibwa. In Tyler, S. (ed.), Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 165–90.Google Scholar
Bright, J., & Bright, W. (1969). Semantic structures in Northwestern California and the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. In Tyler, S. (ed.), Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 66–77.Google Scholar
Brudner, L. (1969). ‘An analyssis of the ethnic components of social transactions’. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.) University of California.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. (1956). India as a linguistic area. Lg. 32. 3–16.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds), The ethnography of communication. (AmA 66 (6) Pt 2.) Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1969). Communication in multilingual societies. In Tyler, S. (ed.), Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 435–48.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1970). Verbal strategies. In Alatis, J. (ed.), Georgetown monograph series on languages and linguistics, no. 23.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Hernandez, Ch. E. (1975). Cognitive aspects of bilingual communication. In Whiteley, W. H. (ed.), Language use and social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 111–25.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1971). Creolization and pidginization of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). The logic of non-standard English. In Alatis, J. (ed.), Georgetown monograph series on languages and linguistics, no. 22.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Commentaries on J. Gumperz ‘How can we describe and measure the behavior of bilingual groups?’ In Kelly, L. G. (ed.), Description and measurement of bilingualism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 250–5.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1970). Mimeographed lectures. Irvine: Department of Social Science, University of California.Google Scholar
Stewart, W. A. (1962). An outline of linguistic typology for describing multilingualism. In Rice, F. A. (ed.), Study of the role of second languages in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 15–25. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar