Introduction:

As may be imagined, it is easy to find definitions of bilingualism that

reflect widely divergent responses to this question of degree. In 1933, for
example, Leonard Bloomfield (1887–1949) observed, in his seminal
Language, that bilingualism resulted from the addition of a perfectly learned
foreign language to one’s own, undiminished native tongue. Uriel Weinreich, a
central figure in sociolinguistics, simply defined bilingualism (in 1953) as the
alternate use of two languages. At about the same time, Einar Haugen, in his study of
Norwegian in America, suggested that bilingualism began with the ability to produce
complete and meaningful utterances in the second language. Generally speaking,
earlier definitions tended to restrict bilingualism to equal mastery of two languages,
while later ones have allowed much greater variation in competence. But since this
relaxation proves in practice to be as unsatisfactory as an argument from perfection at
least for the purpose of defining bilingualism in any generally applicable
fashion most modern treatments acknowledge that any meaningful
discussion must be attempted within a specific context, and for specific
purposes.
Bilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon. Most nations have speakers of more
than one language. Furthermore, even so-called monolinguals also routinely switch
from one language variety- a regional dialect, the standard language, and specialized
technical register, a formal or informal style, and so on- to another in the course of
their daily interactions.
The study of the multilingualism not only focuses on one of the most significant types
of language use but also has the potential to shed light on language behavior in
general.

Reasons for multilingualism:

1- Migration: when speakers of one language settle in an area where
another language is used. Spanish in the U.S.A is a good example of this.
2- Cultural contact : when a society imports and assimilates the cultural
institutions (e.g., religion and culture)
3- Annexation: as in the case of French- and Spanish- speaking parts in
the United States.
4- Commercial, scientific, and technological dependence of the speakers
of certain languages on the speakers of other languages.

Code switching:
It is also common to find linguistic alteration occurring within one unit of
speech directed to one listener. In his classic volume on the subject,
Weinreich stated that all such ‘deviation from the norms of either language’
may be referred to as interference.39 It seems evident, however, that not every
switch from one language to another results from the unwelcome intrusion
which the term interference suggests; speakers may often switch for emphasis,
because they feel that the mot juste is found more readily in one of their
languages than in another, or because of their perceptions of the speech
situation, changes in content, the linguistic skills of their inter-locutors,
degrees of intimacy and so on. Some writers have thus opted for the more
neutral term transference which implies, among other things, a greater element
of volition. There is certainly a wide range of possibilities, as the following
examples suggest:
(1) The proceedings went smoothly, ba? (Tagalog)
(2) This morning I hantar my baby tu dekat babysitter tu lah (‘This morning
I took my baby to the babysitter’). (Malay-English)
(3) De pompier militaire van de staat…loop partout me ne vitesse zoo rapide
as de chemin de fer (‘The state military fireman…runs everywhere with
the speed of a railway’). (French-Dutch)
(4) Sano että tulla tänne että I’m very sick (‘Tell them to come here that I’m
very sick’). (Finnish-English)
(5) Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y terminó en espan¯ol
(‘Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English and end it in Spanish’).
These examples of code-switching (some refer to it as code-mixing; these and
other terms have yet to reach agreed-upon definition) illustrate changes of
various types. Example (1) shows ‘tag-switching’, where a stock element in
one language (often interrogatory or exclamatory) is joined to an utterance in
another. A common related event is when speakers of German and French, for
whom the tags nicht wahr and n’est-ce pas are all-purpose say, in English,
something like *She’s a nice person, isn’t it? This is plainly a matter of
interference. Examples (2) and (3) show intrasentential mixing; indeed, (3) is
particularly interesting. Is this mainly lexical interference, since the basic
structure is Dutch, or is it better seen as repeated switching? Finally, examples
(4) and (5) show intersentential mixing/switching, where the change occurs at a
clause or sentence boundary.
A considerable amount of research has been devoted to the
understanding of the linguistic factors which may account for various
types of code changing, the constraints which make one form more likely
or common than another, and so on. Obviously this has a great deal to
do with the grammar and syntax of each of the languages involved.
Different types of language transfer can be easily understood.
Sometimes loanwords become very widely used and, if we go far enough,
we reach the level of permanent interlanguage borrowing. Here are some
‘English’ words showing eastern influence:
ALCOHOL (Arabic al-koh’l): powdered antimony, then any quintessence
(e.g., ‘alcohol of wine’ via distillation), then just the intoxicating
ingredient.
ALGEBRA (Arabic al-jebr): the reuniting of broken parts, first used in
English to refer to the setting of bones.
ASSASSIN (hash-shashin): hashish-eaters, a sect who killed under the
influence of cannabis.
BUCKRAM: first meant a high-quality fabric from Bokhara then, later,
coarse cloth.
EUNUCH (Greek eunoukhos): ‘bed-guard’.
GAZETTE (Italian gazeta or gazzetta): name of a small Venetian copper
coin.
ONYX (Greek onux): ‘claw, fingernail’ (pink, with white streaks).
PUNCH (Hindi panch, Sanskrit panchan): ‘five’ (i.e., the five basic
ingredients: wine/spirit, water/milk, sugar, lemon and spice).
TABBY: from Al-’at-tabiya, a suburb of Baghdad named for Prince Attab
where a cloth was made known as attabi; this was usually striped. Later
applied to cats.
 Two kinds of codeswitching were distinguished: sociopragmatic
codeswitching, shown to be motivated by sociolinguistic factors, and structural-
psycholinguistic codeswitching, motivated by lexicalization and grammaticalization
differences between the two languages in contact as well as by
disturbances in formulation. Two constructs were used to distinguish these
different types of codeswitching: intentionality and directionality. Sociopragmatic
codeswitching is more top-down, goal-driven, and influenced by
external, contextual factors; psycholinguistic codeswitching is governed more by
internal, individual processes. The directionality of codeswitching was raised as
a related issued. It was argued that Ll-to-L2 codeswitching should be more
prevalent when codeswitching is sociopragmatically motivated and marked,
while L2-to-Ll codeswitching should be more prevalent when there are
difficulties in lexical access and fluency. Four processing mechanisms,
imitation, variation, integration, and control, were applied to a discussion of
codeswitching. The interplay between imitation and variation was proposed to
explain how codeswitching operates. Two kinds of integration were mentioned
as relevant: integration of structural information about and integration of
processes.
Finally, when two or more languages exist in a community, speakers frequently
switch from one language to another; this phenomenon is called code switching.
We have two kinds of code switching:
1- Situational code switching: the switch is in response to a change in situation, for
example; when a new participant enters the scene, or to a change in the topic.
2- Metaphorical code switching: the switch has stylistic or textual function, for
example, to signal a quotation.

Code Mixing:
Code mixing is distinguished from borrowing on the following grounds:
1- Borrowing may occasionally involve a few set phrases but it usually
restricted to single lexical items.
2- Borrowed words can occur even in the speech of monolinguals,
whereas code mixing presupposes a certain degree of bilingual competence.
3- Code mixing isn’t always used to fill lexical gaps.
4- Borrowings represent a restricted set of expressions.
5- Borrowings represent mostly nouns and, marginally, a few adjectives
and other categories.

References:
1- Edwards, John, Multilingualism, Routledge Press, London, 1993
2- Walters, Joel, Bilingualism:The Sociopragmatic- Psycholinguistic
Interface, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher, London, 2005