Com Disc Publish

Global English in Bulgarian: code-mixing strategies in adult

and youth discoursei

Maria Georgieva

1. Introduction

For good or ill, the world today is flooded by English. It is

the international language of business and politics, of science

and technology, of tourism and entertainment. It is the language

of communication amongst people from all over the world who tend

to mould it in all kinds of ways in pursuit of specific

communicative goals, of distinct identities or interpersonal

alignment with communicative partners. Most linguists agree

today that the English used for international communication

satisfies predominantly instrumental needs. It is rife with non-

standard usages, language crossings, code-mixings and lexical

borrowings, neologisms and nonce words that make it appear

divested of cultural identity and bereft of the power of a

national or ethnic stronghold. In short, it is a variety shaped

as much by non-native as by its native speakers, a kind of

“English ‘let loose’”, as Firth has aptly defined it , a

“linguistically ‘lawless’ lingua franca jungle” (2009:159) that

is diffusing irrevocably into other languages’ territories,

sapping their functional vitality, deforming and transforming

them in a hitherto unprecedented fashion.

Global English has been in the centre of researchers’ attention

for quite some time now and today there is a formidable amount of

research literature on the scope and reasons for its spread, on

its role in the ever intensifying globalization of societies and

the shaping of postmodern identities (Phillipson 1992, Crystal

1997, McArthur 1998, Graddol 1997, 2006, Fairclough 2006,

Pennycook 2007, Saxena and Omonuiy 2010, etc.). In mainstream

sociolinguistic theorizing, global English has generally been

conceptualized within two main paradigms. The first one, the

World Englishes (WE) paradigm, is advanced principally by Kachru and

the circle of explorers of localized English varieties spoken in

many former colonial countries, who seek to establish the

legitimacy of these varieties as functionally independent, norm-

developing exponents of creativity and cultural identity ( Kachru

1985, Bhatt 1995, Kachru and Nelson 1996, Sridhar 1996, etc.).

The second, the English as a Lingua Franca (ELF ) paradigm, is explored

largely by researchers of English as used across Europe by

speakers of other languages. Their goal of research is

description of ELF as a specific variety in its own right

(Seidlhofer 2001, House 2003, Jenkins 2006, Meierkord 2006,

etc.), examination of ELF interaction amongst nonnative speakers

of the language ( Pölzl & Seidlhofer 2006, Cogo 2009, Georgieva

2009) and drawing implications for the teaching of English as a

foreign language, widely acknowledged as the dominant channel for

the spread of ELF (Alptekin 2002, McKay 2002, Canagarajah 2002,

Seidlhofer et al 2006, Jenkins2006a)

Research within these two paradigms has been extremely

important in helping our thinking about norms and standards in

different Englishes (cf. for instance, Quirk 1990/2003, Kachru

1991/2003, Brutiaux 2006) and the feasibility of codifying, i.e.

fixing a lingua franca variety as a “respectable alternative” to

native speaker English in intercultural communication amongst

nonnative speakers (e.g. Seidlehofer 2001, James 2008, Ferguson

2009). It has indeed done a great deal for undermining our

confidence in the essentially monolithic concept of the native

speaker as a frame of reference for norms of use and teaching

English in nonnative settings and for energizing TEFL specialists

to move away from deficit-oriented teaching approaches and start

looking for ecologically balanced criteria of evaluating the

diverse practices of English language learning and use (Kramsch

& Thorne 2002, Kubota 2002, Firth 2009, etc).

These positive results notwithstanding, both WE and ELF views

have been criticized by scholars adopting a postmodernist

perspective for operating with a “limited and limiting

conceptualization of globalization, language standards and

identity” (Pennycook 2003:517) and for being “out of touch with

contemporary global realities” (De Costa 2010:104).

Sociolinguists’ preoccupation with Global English, scholars have

argued, tends to further reinforce its position by the “incessant

reiterating of its role” (Pennycook 2007:6) and undermine the

significance of the deep and irreversible processes of reshaping,

rescaling and transforming of local language landscapes. In

consequence, postmodernist sociolinguists call for a new way of

talking about culture that takes account of the massive influx of

external influences through the increasingly more porous national

borders in postmodernity, bringing into contact diverse cultural

and communication models and producing a slew of hybrid forms,

borrowings and imitations, code-switches, neologisms and nonce

words. So ELF from this perspective “does not exist as a ‘thing’

or a ‘system’ out there” (Firth 2009:163). It emerges out of and

through interaction and is constantly negotiated and adjusted in

communication (Canagarajah 2006:926). Moreover, ELF is

predominantly an agentive act, an act of appropriation and

reconstruction influenced by individual needs for interpersonal

alignment, identity building, accommodation or attunement to the

context of the moment.

In this chapter, I side with the postmodernist view that an in-

depth understanding of the role and place of English in the

present-day fast globalizing world requires that, in addition to

the changes of English itself, we also consider its ramifications

in local spaces and seek answers to such questions as why local

people choose to use English, how local people use English and

how English co-exists with the other languages spoken in the

locality. Taking Bulgarian as exemplary of a local space, I shall

try to show how Bulgarian people draw on English in building

identities deemed appropriate to link them to the broad world,

mixing and adapting, shaping and reshaping imported entities to

make them fit into their local discourses. The analysis,

consequently, focuses on the contact between English and

Bulgarian on local grounds and the intricate ways in which the

foreign language is used by Bulgarians to index social group

affiliation and involvement with global processes. At the same

time, the study is also community- oriented as I intend to

explore the impact of English on the speech behaviour of two

generationally distinct communities tentatively labelled as

“adult speakers”(AS) and “young speakers” (YS). With the caveat

that this is not a variational study in the true sense, I shall

examine how, and to what extent, globally-oriented products of

popular culture interpenetrating the locality largely through the

medium of English are appropriated and accommodated within adult

and young speakers’ discourses, respectively, and adapted to

their identity needs. The analysis is carried out in two steps.

As a first step, I shall analyze a corpus of speech samples

representative of the speech behaviour of the communities of

interest extracted from the readers’ forums of the electronic

versions of several Bulgarian newspapers and magazines and the

Eurovision 2010 song contest website. At the second stage, I

crosscheck my findings through analysis of two Bulgarian

magazines having as readership the communities of interest. My

decision to analyze mediated discourse is based on the premise

that writers for the printed media “design their style primarily

for and in response to their audience”(cf. Bell’s “audience-

design model” 2001:143) whereby any innovation or variation of

style pertaining to the examined communities will be projected

onto the style of the respective magazines provided it is

sufficiently widespread.

A brief survey of the literature concerned with the contact of

English with other languages will help us position the present

study in the mosaic of topics that have attracted researchers’

attention.

2. Research on the impact of English on local spaces: an

overview

On the face of it, the effects of global English on local

languages are not different from contact-induced language changes

explored by contact linguistics from a linguistic,

sociolinguistic, sociological or psychological perspective.

Arguably, most of the issues currently ascribed to globalizing

English have already been in the focus of attention of linguists

working within the paradigm of language borrowing, bilingualism,

second/foreign language learning or intercultural communication.

As a result, we have today an impressive amount of research on

the motives and mechanisms of borrowing, the patterns of

adaptation and integration of borrowed items into local varieties

and the social effects of the process (e.g., Danchev 1981,

Alexieva 2005, Parlog 2000, etc). There is also a bulk of

research on the communicative behaviour of bilinguals and

second/foreign language users that has provided valuable insights

into bilingual speakers’ motivation for and patterns of selecting

and mixing codes (e.g. Gumperz 1982, Myers-Scotton 1993, 1999,

Gardner-Chloros 1997, Gardner-Chloros et al 2000) as well as into

the particular social meanings that language mixing or crossing

can serve to index in interaction (Rampton 1999, Myers-Scotton

and Bolonyai 2001).

The importance of these studies notwithstanding, I want to

argue that the sociolinguistic context of globalization is more

dynamic and complex and cannot be adequately accounted for by the

predominantly structure-oriented earlier investigations within

the paradigm of contact linguistics. All the more so when we

consider the apparent “disunity of approach” (Winford 2007: 22)

of this broad-range discipline partitioned into multiple

subfields marked off by boundaries bound to reinforce rather

than alleviate inconsistencies in the categorization of contact

phenomena. Accordingly, I side with postmodernist sociolinguists

who argue that in order to gain a deeper understanding of English

as a product and driver of globalization, we ought to be more

flexible and look into the full range of oscillations of use and

function in the spate of language-contact situations English

enters into across ethnic or cultural groups or geographical

territories. In consequence, some new lines of inquiry have come

forth.

One of the fairly productive strands is centred on

investigation of major debatable issues concerning international

English from a local perspective. Researchers working within this

paradigm have taken to explore the intensity and scope of English

diffusion in particular localities, specificities of local

varieties of English, speakers’ attitudes towards norms and

standards, social and symbolic roles assigned to English by local

people and, especially, how changes in the sociolinguistic

situation are accounted for by local language policies (e.g.

Georgieva 2005, 2010a, Hilmarsson-Dun 2010, Shen 2010;

Kristiansen 2010, Svavarsdottir et al 20101),

Another strand of locally-oriented research is focused on the

transformation of local social practices and discourses brought

about by the growing transnational and cross-cultural

interconnectedness in all spheres of life and the emergence of

pluralistic centres of reference as a result of the entanglement

of global and local concepts, values, images or products.

Scholars working within this paradigm explore the mechanisms of

construction and reconstruction of new discourses of

globalization where English figures as a functionally motivated

resource for refashioning local discursive models to bring them

in tune with transcultural communicative contexts, for indexing

social meanings having global resonance, or for building

identities of post-modernity. Though relatively recent, the

amount of research within this approach is steadily growing and

examples pertaining to different social domains can readily be

provided: for instance, business ( e.g. Dimova 2008, Leonardi

2010), politics ( Flowerdew 2002, Holland 2002, Fairclough 2006),

the media (Hjarvard 2004, Hilmarsson-Dunn 2010, Georgieva 2010,

Parlog and Frătilă 2010), lifestyle and entertainment ( Frătilă1 Cf. the MIN project (Modern Imports in the Languages in the Nordic Countries)http://moderne-importord.info,\).

http://moderne-importord.info/

2005, Omoniyi 2006, Pennycook 2007, Low et al 2009), education/

academic discourse ( Georgieva 2010b, Vassileva 2010 ) and

identity building (Pillar 2002). Inasmuch as all these studies

are centred on the way English enmeshes with local languages in

particular social practices, they are very important in

illuminating the variable purposes that English is deployed for

locally. The argument of this chapter, however, is that local

uses and functions of English may vary not only in terms of

social domains but also in terms of the speakers who utilize the

language as a valuable communicative resource. This comes to

imply that for a thorough understanding of the impact of English

on local discourses we need also to investigate how English is

appropriated and incorporated in the speech of different social

groups of people. As already noted, the specific objective of the

current analysis is to compare how English impacts on the

discourse of two social groups of speakers distinguished in terms

of age, labeled YS (young speakers) and AS (adult speakers),

respectively.

3. Language as an index of group membership

Across their lifespan, people are expected to adhere to a range

of behavioural and sociocultural norms that serve as benchmarks

for self-identifying or categorizing of others and establishing

group membership based on age. Amongst the multitude of norms

with a bearing on age, sociolinguists investigating age groups

often choose to tap into communication norms - ways of speaking,

conceptualization, discursive frameworks, speech styles and so

on - to identify clusters of characteristics serving as

indices of age identity (Giles et al 2010). Like most other social

formations, age groups are “imagined communities” that can be

defined through “an individual’s awareness of group membership

and respective group differences in an intergroup

encounter.”(Giles et al 2010:75). It is generally acknowledged

though that group membership is neither static nor fully

explicit. It operates on many levels – ethnographic,

sociocultural, discourse, etc., – and is contingent on an ongoing

negotiation of meanings, concepts, competences and ideologies

regarded as indexical of the respective social group. Inasmuch

as a large part of group membership and age identity is

constructed in and through interaction, speakers’ code choice and

interaction patterns can therefore be taken as indexical of age-

related social meanings.

The assumption that group membership and age identity are

interactively constructed implies further that the categories are

amenable to attitudinal and discursive adjustments, for instance,

when someone shows preference to symbols that characterize

another age group. In such cases, group membership defined in

terms of origin tends to be played down, superseded by a much

more fluid form of grouping, the so-called “community of

practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991, as quoted in Eckert and

McConnell-Ginet 2003). Propelled by people’s natural propensity

to group together on the basis of shared interests, dispositions,

affiliation or experiences, communities of practice are

characterized by specific communicative competencies, including

different language structures, discourse strategies and

ideologies, which community members develop through a continual

negotiation while participating in joint activities or virtual

networks. Since these competencies are not evenly distributed

across all community members, they acquire the force of “symbolic

capital” (Eckert and Wenger 2005:587). Depending on what part of

a community’s “symbolic capital” they possess, therefore,

members can take a more central, or marginal, position in the

community and may feel more, or less, empowered to make decisions

about what behaviour is “appropriate”, “normal”, “right”,

“proper”, or “relevant”, in short questions pertaining to a

community’s “ideology”.

For the purposes of the present analysis I assume that the two

principles of division are complementary and can be combined

into a common framework of analysis. Chronological age is used

for a relatively crude division of speakers into two groups –

young and adult speakers, respectively, whereas the analysis

proper is focused on the discursive practices of these groups. In

this way I hope to be able to capture instances of intra-group

variation considering the fact that we participate in social

life, index stances and aspects of identity through interaction

in different communities of practice. However, since comparison

of the respective groups’ discursive practices is rather too

broad a topic for a chapter of this length, I shall narrow my

object of study down to the following questions:

How do speakers of the two groups of interest accommodate

into their discursive practices the flows of new concepts,

meanings, images and other products of popular culture that have

infiltrated their locality as a result of globalization?

Are the two groups of speakers guided by the same ideology

in appropriating, mixing, transforming and integrating into their

discourse globally- oriented, external elements largely dispersed

through the mediation of English?

Are there differences in the strategies deployed by

representatives of the two groups of interest for signaling group

membership, solidarity, or “discursive performance of identity”

(Johnstone 2008:153)?

In short, I intend to look into instances of reallocation of

English structures into local discourses and, especially, into

the patterns of code-mixing/ switching that speakers of the two

groups adopt as a framework for blending local and global

entities in the construction of social events and identities.

But before I proceed with the concrete analysis, I find it

pertinent to consider in brief the relationship between

globalization and discourse which according to the stance taken

in this study mutually co-construct each other bringing about

socio-political, economic and cultural transformations of world

societies commonly referred to as postmodernity.

4. Globalization and discourse

a. Globalization

Owing to its wide disciplinarity, ranging from history and

political science to economics, finance and social theory, the

concept of globalization is not easy to define. For the purposes

of the present study I have chosen to define it as a “set of

processes which generate a multiplicity of linkages and

interconnections between states and societies which make up the

modern world system” (Hall 1992:68). By foregrounding

“interconnectedness” as a major characteristics of the

phenomenon, this definition emphasizes the importance of a shared

language, or lingua franca, as a prerequisite for successful

transnational activity and thus illuminates the relationship

between discourse and globalization. It further uncovers the

possibility for languages to “flow in and out of each other” and

enter into complex relations of mixing, crossing, transforming or

“translating for meaning” (Pennycook 2008:42).

Globalization has been conceptualized from different

perspectives but the issues I am going to explore find most

support in what is generally named “transformationalist”

framework (as presented in Dewey 2007) within which it is

regarded as the main driving force of current sociopolitical,

economic and cultural transformations of world societies.

Sociolinguists working within this paradigm have pointed a number

of outcomes of globalization with relevance to language

communication. Perhaps the most salient of them, enhanced by the

advance of modern technologies, is the profound reordering of space

and time conducive to blurring of the boundaries of such opposites

as internal/ external, distant/ close, past/present or foreign/ domestic used as

signposts in the socio-political order of the previous century

pivoted around the nation-state and national culture (cf. Giddens

1991, Hall 1992, Fairclough2006).

Another consequence of globalization that seems to have left

deep imprints on present-day communication patterns is the large-

scale “deterritorialization” (Tomlinson 1999, as quoted in Fairclough

2006:24) or internationalization of social practices . As a

result of these processes, distant events and experiences are

quite routinely brought into local people’s lives, broadening

“the horizon of relevance “ (Fairclough 2006:24) of their

everyday activity and leading to considerable “linguacultural

intermixture” (Dewey and Jenkins 2010:79). The mingling of

languages, cultures and norms of communication from different

territorial locations provides ample opportunities for hybridization

and the emergence of genres and styles that are simultaneously

global, as they serve as links to transnational social networks,

and local, expressive of local viewpoints and identity (Bhatt

2010).

Notwithstanding the general agreement on the all-pervasiveness

of hybridization in life today, its social consequences are

subject to heated debates in research literature. Some scholars

interpret the diffusion of hybrids in local spaces as indicative

of increasing homogenization, often equated with Americanization,

or more generally, Westernization of cultures (cf. Phillipson

1992: 59 on “cultural imperialism”) and warn that if taken to

extremes, it might virtually lead to a paradigm shift in

communication, turning it into “McCommunication” (Block

2002:120). Fairclough labels the process, “technologization of

discourse” (1992:215) proposing as its key characteristics over-

rationalization, with a bearing on efficiency, predictability and

control, and commodification contributing to its easier spread

around the world.

There are also researchers, however, who question such gloomy

prognostications arguing that the outcomes from enhanced

interconnectedness are far more complex and multifarious than

proponents of the cultural homogenization hypothesis present them

to be (e.g. Dewey 2007, Dewey and Jenkins 2010, Bhatt 2010).

Hybridization, they argue, involves simultaneously accommodation

and resistance, fragmentation and restructuring, intensification

of international interconnectedness but also enhanced awareness

of the importance of local autonomy and all these effects imply

diversity and complexity rather than homogeneity. In a similar

vein is Blommaert’s (2007) proposal of a “scale “ metaphor for

representation of social spaces in a context of globalization

which tend to be fragmented and stratified due to the emergence

of multiple centres of reference. Finding themselves in such

polycentric and layered environments, people feel compelled to

observe discourse norms attached to different sources of

authority - local as well as translocal, momentary as well as

lasting - in order to align with interlocutors and reach mutual

understanding. This naturally affects their styles / registers

which may undergo different degrees of rescaling depending on

speakers’ available access to sources of authority. Blommaert

proposes the “scale” metaphor to account for variability in the

use of English as an international language but I want to argue

that it can be successfully employed for the description of

diverse uses and functions of English in local discourses. Hence,

I shall try to show how imported words and structures can index

different social meanings and effects depending on who uses them

and for what purpose.

b. Discourse

The relationship between globalization and discourse is complex

and multifaceted. As representations of the interface of

language and social action, discourse models reflect all major

“processes, relations and structures of the material, mental and

social worlds” (Fairclough 2003:124) and exist in people’s minds

as specific constructs comprising all that is essential and

typical from the surrounding world and providing a primary frame

of reference for social action. Given their role as “prototypical

simulations” (Gee 2005:75) of all that is of relevance in real-

life practice, discourse models are most susceptible of

transmutation caused by globalization processes.

Discourse is a complex construct shaped by both a community’s

social structures and human agency, that is, “the people involved

in social events” (Fairclough 2003:22). There is a broad

consensus among scholars that the social and cognitive entities

underpinning discourse construction are drawn on different

layers of people’s social and psychological reality ranging from

the most abstract collective cultural base through social

practices, institutionalized to a bigger or lesser degree, and

finally, to everyday social events and experiences. Thus the

generalizations produced are of varying degrees of abstractness

which explains, at least partially, the layered, multifarious

nature of the relationship between discourse and globalization.

It has already been noted that practically all levels of

social, economic and cultural life have been affected by current

processes of integration and interconnectedness. Owing to

advanced communication technologies, narratives and stories,

images and concepts from all over the world have diffused freely

into local spaces entering into competition with local

traditions, values and beliefs passed on across generations as

part of their cultural heritage. Because imported narratives also

carry histories of evaluation, in particular, judgments about

what is “correct”, ”right”, “reproachful” or “ reprobate”

regarding events and actions, they have seriously affected local

value systems by creating new centres of reference. The

emergence of multiple centres of authority, in turn, has led to

destabilization of the cultural bases serving as local frames of

reference causing people to vacillate between local and global

values in their self-identification and in determining their

sense of loyalty and belonging.

The pressure for transnational harmonization and homogenization

at the level of social practices has further led to unobstructed

infiltration of external norms, rules, conventions and

regulations in the discursive performance of social acts and

stances on local grounds. Moreover, the need for alignment of

local discursive frames with a motley assortment of imported,

trans-regional or transnational elements has yielded a multitude

of hybrid constructs confronting local people with real problems

of understanding their own language.

At the level of speech events, widened opportunities for

mobility and participation in virtual networks have led to

diversification of the contexts of intercultural communication

and democratization of the norms of interpersonal relations

allowing convergence and mutual enrichment of cultural patterns.

The intensification of international contacts has also enabled

people, particularly from the younger generations, to replenish

their communicative supplies with new expression means and

interaction strategies that are more in tune with the demands of

transcultural communication.

In essence, all changes brought about by globalization

processes involve mixing, merging and crossing of global and

local entities conducive to a kind of “rescaling” of the local

space, or to the formation of a practically new, polycentric and

rather incoherent semiotic space. Some sociolinguists liken this

new semiotic space to a kind of “third space” in which “the local

and the global systems converge and are co-modified in response

to the global-local tensions on the one hand, and the

dialogically constituted identities, formed through resistance

and appropriation, on the other” (Bhatt 2008:178). Besides being

fluid and unstable, this “third space” is also characterized by

what Blommaert calls “textual asymmetry” ( 2007:8) which means

that different social groups usually have access to different

resources, hence to different forms of intertextuality. In

consequence, it offers a much wider range of variability and

texts created in the “third space” commonly evoke different

attitudes and different degrees of acceptance among community

members. Thus, it cannot fully replace original semiotic spaces

but exists alongside them as a kind of parallel reality. Since

external/ global entities are not truly integrated into the

local semiotic systems this provides a fertile soil for evolving

hybridization, a process that is commonly referred to as

glocalization.

In another study (Georgieva 2010), I have provided as an

example of glocalization a specific way of speaking called Globe

Talk (GT) representing a peculiar medley of English and Bulgarian

forms and structures with no clear patterns of blending. I have

argued that GT is in a way an outcome of ordinary people’s

attempts to cope with the increasing Anglicization of their

environment and may thus be understood as a product of a peculiar

kind of “folk bilingualism”, or rather “mock bilingualism”. GT

users may not actually be bilingual at all possessing a very

small supply of random English words and phrases picked up from

films, songs, advertisements, or computer games. Such a limited

competence is arguably of dubitable value for conducting a

meaningful conversation. Yet, it has a very high symbolic value

as it can provide any GT user with a “ticket” to the globally-

oriented community of practice s/he wants to affiliate with. In

this case, hybridized resources, formed through mixing, crossing

and incorporating English elements into Bulgarian structures,

prove very useful as a “low-cost” addition to speakers’ pseudo-

competence that can ensure effortless access to the desired

global community or network. Furthermore, GT proves a useful

tool for signaling resistance against the conformism and

traditionalism of mainstream norms of conduct and for fashioning

identities perceived to comply better with speakers’ cherished

desire to level differences caused by divergent lifestyles and

social inequalities. In my previous study I have shown that GT is

widely spread amongst Bulgarian young people. One of my aims in

this study is to see how GT as a specific youth genre relates to

mainstream discourse.

5. The Corpus

In this study, I use two corpora of Bulgarian speech samples.

The first one is representative of real-life electronic

communication. It is derived from readers’ forums on the

electronic version of several Bulgarian newspapers and magazines

and the Eurovision 2010 song contest website and amounts to

about fifty thousand words. The second one has been excerpted

from six random editions of two Bulgarian magazines – HIGH-CLUB and

A cornucopia for WOMAN (or, WOMAN for short) – issued by the same

publisher but addressed to generationally different readerships.

HIGH-CLUB is a popular magazine for teenagers and WOMAN is a

women’s magazine. What makes these magazines suitable for

comparison is that they are very similar in terms of coverage.

Both can be categorized as entertainment magazines covering

topics on lifestyle, fashion, shopping, beauty, celebrities, free

time, music and others. They are not, however, so similar in

style: HIGH-CLUB has a more interactive style whereas WOMAN’s

style is more information-oriented.

The sample texts for the analysis have been delimited on the

basis of meaning which means that they differ in length, ranging

from a single sentence to a whole paragraph, the principle being

that the text should represent a complete idea and should include

minimum one example of contact-induced use of English, that is,

borrowing, code-switching, script-mixing, and so forth. However,

for reasons of space much shorter versions of the examined

samples will be presented here. Since the analysis focuses on the

current Bulgarian situation, borrowings long established in the

language are not considered. The overall number of examples in

the corpus is 558, respectively 307 from HIGH-CLUB and 251 from

WOMAN.

6. AS vs. YS discourse – ideological aspects

a. AS discourse

From a sociolinguistic perspective, ideology can be defined as

“historically rooted and publicly articulated statements of

cultural belief about language and its users that mediate between

interactional moment and broader sociopolitical structures”

(Bucholz and Hall 2008:4). Integrated into discourse, these sets

of cultural beliefs serve as a frame of reference for what speech

behaviour may count as “normal”, “natural”, ”appropriate”, “

good/bad” or an “exemplar of excellence”. This determines the

objectives of the analysis at this stage, namely, to uncover what

patterns of mixing, merging, crossing, or accommodating of

English as an imported language into Bulgarian as a matrix

language are perceived by members of the two communities of

interest as “natural”, “un/appropriate” or “un/acceptable”. Also,

I shall try to establish whether young and adult speakers’

motivation for code-mixing is driven by similar or different

functional or social considerations and hence whether there are

any differences between the code-mixing strategies occurring in

Globe Talk and ordinary bilingual speech behaviour.

In my analysis I am going to use material from the first corpus

representative, as mentioned, of real life electronic

communication. As a word of warning, it seems tenable to point

out that this kind of performance does not permit a clear

distinction to be drawn between oral and written speech.

The code-mixing strategies occurring in adult speech can be

illustrated by the following examples:

1. Към горните твърдения ще допълня, че подобни материали успешно

могат да се ползват като нагледно помагало за определяне на типа

BIASED 2 journalism . (Sega, MarsAttack)

[I shall also add to the above that materials of this kind can successfully be used as a guidebook to what is known as BIASED journalism3]

2. Какво е това RIP ??? (Dnevnik, PIR)

[What does RIP mean?]

"Почивай в мир" по нашенски, но съкратено на английски,

абревиатура - Rest In peace", RIP... (Dnevnik, Alexander)

[We say “Pochivai v mir”, but abbreviated in English, an

abbreviation - Rest In peace", RIP]

Едно уточнение: RIP е формула, която произлиза от лат.

requiescat in pace, т.е "[нека] да почива в мир" и се среща по

надгробията, ако не се лъжа, още отпреди християнството. (Dnevnik,

big_al)

[Let me clarify. RIP is a formula originating from Latin, requiescat

in pace, carved on gravestones much before Christianity, if I am

not mistaken.]

3. а любимото ми е "запечен бански старец" преведено в менюто

като "constipated old man from bansko", как да не си го поръчаш...

(SEGA, Jessy )

[…and my favourite is ‘roast dry sausage’ translated in the Menu

as ‘constipated man from Bansko’…, (‘staretz’ can mean a) old man; b)

a kind of dry sausage)]

2 In all examples I have preserved the formatting of the original. 3 All Bulgarian texts are followed by English glosses. I have tried to keep asclose as possible to the original text which accounts for the clumsiness of some of the translations.

4. 4estit 24 м @ й : за 20 години преход изгубихмe пълния член,

чукаме в Гугъла и …

[lit. ‘Happy 24th of May’:4 for 20 years in transition we have lost a

form of the definite article, we ‘click’ Google and milk hens.]

5. Ей, бългериън ин на майната си , що си избрал тоя ник? То голема

гордост да миеш чинии през океана и да плюваш Булгаристан, а? Знаеш ли

какво е уигър? Ако не си виждал, застани пред огледалото. Имигрантът е

човек, който е чужденец и в собствената си страна. Ай със здраве, иде

Коледа и в скапаната ти родина ще си изкараме чудесно с близките и

приятелите си, а ти ще пишеш по форумите. Нappy Christmas and New year for you!

(Sega, Werno?)

[Hey, Bulgarian in that damn place why did you choose this nickname5? You

seem to be taking too much pride in working as dishwasher across the

ocean and swearing at Bulgaria, eh? Do you know what ‘wigger’ means?

If you haven’t seen one just stand in front of a mirror. An immigrant

is a foreigner in his own country. All the best. Christmas is coming

and we are going to have a great time with our friends and relatives

in your damned country while you are killing time writing in online

forums. Нappy Christmas and New year for you!]

The above examples may all pass for a typical behaviour of

bilingual speakers. The code-mixing strategies deployed by

speakers are functionally motivated, easily describable via some

of the well-known bilingual interaction models, for instance, the

Matrix-Language Model ( Myers-Scotton 1993, 1999). It is quite

obvious that the matrix language is Bulgarian. The “embedded

islands” of English (and Latin) are indexical of fairly easily

4 On the 24th of May, Bulgarians celebrate the day of their alphabet5 The man’s nickname is “Bulgarian in the USA”

recognizable social meanings. Most would agree, for instance, that

the purpose of the code-switching strategy in example (1) is to

signal the speaker’s claim to some specific professional knowledge

that enhances his positive image. Then the series of code-switches

in example (2) clearly serve to fill in a knowledge gap indirectly

providing speakers with an opportunity to boost their positive

identity. An infelicitous English translation in example (3) has

given grounds to the speaker to ridicule the incompetence of an

unknown translator and emphasize his own high proficiency in the

language. In example (4), where the mixing is actually on the

level of scripts, the author’s criticism is certainly levelled at

“geek speak” , the computer jargon that is flooding printed and

electronic media these days. Finally, example (5) illustrates an

attitudinally motivated use of code-switching which the speaker

accentuates by transliterating his opponent’s nickname,

substituting a part of it by a swear word to enhance his negative

feelings (cf. Bulgarian in the USA – бългериън ин на майната си

(Bulgarian in the back of beyond)).

The results of this brief survey of adult speakers’ code-switching

strategies come to imply that they are not meant to break local

discourse norms but rather to complement them. Indeed, the

occurrence of code-switching in texts addressed to Bulgarian

readership may be seen as some kind of an attempt to challenge

conventions and established mainstream discourse frames. However

in the current context of spreading bilingualism, the number of

mixings of English and Bulgarian of the kind exemplified above

have grown to such an extent that they tend to be accepted as

quite normal. All the more so when the mixing of codes does not

cause a shift in local patterns that might threaten understanding.

b) YS discourse

The patterns of mixing occurring in YS discourse are

radically different which can be illustrated by the

following examples: 6. a) iskame plakati na robert pls pls pls mn molq plakati na robert

pls pls molq molq molq molq molq mooooooolqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

viiiiiiii iskame plakati na robert pattinson (High Club,

forever_twilight)

[We want posters of Robert Pattison, please…]

b) Robert is the best !!! molq vi daite plakati na

negoooooo(plsssssssssssss) :) (High Club, DanWard)

[Robert is the best …please give us posters of him…]

c) plakatи., plakatиии.,, hiclub daйte plakatиии naa Twilight.,

molqqq ;dd ;s :love: (High Club, merchy)

[posters, posters, High-club give us posters of Twilight, please]

7. mn ms za pozdravcheto Britney Spears - toxic e pozdravche za teb

dano ti har (High Club, Madonnafan1 )

[great thanks for the greeting Britney Spears – toxic is a greeting for

you]

8. pozdrav4e Britney Spears - I m A Slave For You :) (High Club,

viktoriq66)

[greeting Britney Spears – I am a slave for you]

9. онли Бритни (fin4eto, High Club)

[only Britney!, or ‘Long live Britney’]

http://www.hiclub.bg/Fan.asp?Section=Profile&FanId=451987





10. Ит’с “еволюшън”...от песен на Кори – Еволюшън (death_vampire, High

Club)

[It’s ‘evolution’ …from Corry’s song “Evolution”]

11. БИОНСЕ!! ТЯ ЗА МЕН НЕ Е САМО ПЕВИЦА! ТЯ Е БОГИНИЯ! ДЪ БЕСТ Е -

НЯМA КАТО НЕЯ! (High Club, Bioncefan)

[Bionce!! She’s not just a singer. She’s a goddess. The best is…(She’s

the best) – there’s no one like her.]

12. I LOVE YOU JB ....TOLKOVA ME KEFI TOQ 4OVEK 4E NAPRAVOOOOO SUPER

GOT MN QKO SE OBLI4A PRI4ESKATA MU VINAGI E SUPER SLEDYK E HIPERRR

MNNNNNNNN ....KVO DA KAJA I LOVE YOU.....WE LOVE YOU (High Club,

FeN4ItY_NA_JB,)

[I love you JB…I’m so infatuated with this man that I just …super great

and he dresses so smartly, his hairdo is always super, he’s hyper cute,

veryyyy, what can I say I love you … we love you)

13. „Уи дуинг’ тингс дат дъ гърлс дон’т ду” (Beonce, High Club)

[ transliteration: we doing things that the girls don’t do]

14. Ае ей, я стига сте се карали и без драми - това е положението -

share to friends this song :) (Eurovision SongContest, 2010, likanush)

[ Come on, stop quarreling and making a drama out of it…this is the

situation - share to friends this song]

15. ne haresvam mujete zaradi vunshniqt im vid ili zaradi parite ili

materialniqt im jivot haresvam gi zaradi tova koeto sa otvutre. A

negovoto vutreshno "az" e..............my life......my love....my soul......my heart....i love him so

much because he is so sweet and he is so sexy-y-y-y-y !!! (bella1cullen, High Club)

[I don’t like men for their good looks, for their money or their

material life, I like them for what they have within and his inner

self is …..............my life......my love....my soul......my heart....i love him so much

because he is so sweet and he is so sexy-y-y-y-y!!!]

16. Hola Europa, Hello Europe, Hei Europa, Salam Avropa, Bonjour

l'Europe, Bună ziua Europei, Olá Europa, Привет Европы, Здравей Европа,

Merhaba Avrupa... ;) [Eurovision SongContest, 2010]

We can observe, that in some cases, for instance (7), the

mixture of languages and scripts is too random to allow us to

identify a matrix language with any degree of certainty. There is

no regularity in the patterns of code-mixing, neither are the

social meanings they are meant to convey easily identifiable. On

the contrary, some of the strategies of mixing blatantly violate

established structural constraints, particularly on the level of

orthography. See, for instance, the spelling of “plakatи” where

just one letter is in the Cyrillic (posters, e.g. 6/a, c) , or

the insertion of the Cyrillic letter “й” in the middle of the

transliterated in the Latin script Bulgarian word “daйte”(6/c),

( cf.“дайте” (give) ). See also the transliterated English

words/phrases in examples (9,10,13) where the writers have deemed

it necessary to keep the apostrophe which makes no sense in

Bulgarian. Besides being transliterated, the phrase in (9) is

also a literal translation (calque) of a Bulgarian catch phrase

commonly associated with football which is likely to sound

awkward to an English speaker. Similarly, there is no functional

motivation for the repetitive alternation of the Bulgarian and

English counterparts for “please” in “pls pls molq molq”

(molya /please) (6/a).

The mixings on the syntactic level are no less nauseating: see

the mixed Bulgarian-English clause “ дъ бест е “ (11) where the

subject is in English with an impossible for Bulgarian position

of the definite article but transliterated in the Cyrillic script

(дъ бест /’the best’) and the syntactic construction follows a

Bulgarian pattern (cf. the best is – (literary) най-добрата е…,

i.e. (Bionce) is the best). It is almost a rule for writers to

use English nicknames and to write song titles and singers’ names

in English (7), but frequently they go even further by

communicating via song titles; see for instance how the speaker

in (8) expresses his feelings. Of course, there are also writers

proficient enough to produce meaningful English phrases/

sentences (e.g. 14, 15), yet, even in these cases the motivation

for switching into English is not always clear. I can’t suggest a

reasonable explanation why the speaker in (14) has chosen to

convey his request in English when he knows that he is writing in

a Bulgarian forum, neither do I understand why the girl in (15)

switches to English to express her emotions.

Given their haphazard nature, it seems reasonable to conjecture

that the mixings of English and Bulgarian in YS discourse stand

much closer to the hybridity characterizing Globe Talk than to

the code-switching strategies observed in adult speech. Although

most of the imported structures come from English, there are also

numerous instances of multilingual mixtures especially on

international forums such as Eurovision (e.g. 16). A large part

of the discourse frames I have identified have no counterparts in

Bulgarian. At the same time, browsing through young people’s

forums on the Net one can easily come across a similar

“patchwork” of languages produced by speakers of different

cultural and language backgrounds. The following examples from

the Eurovision Song Contest website serve to illustrate that the

phenomenon is widespread and may well turn a universal strategy

of YS discourse.

17. a nice uptempo song amongst all the ballads this year - good

choice Bulgaria - добър щастие българия (martiansf from United States,

28. 02. 2010)

[good happiness Bulgaria – a Google translation of a wish,

comprehensible due to its transparency but not used in Bulgarian]

18. GENIAL, GREAT!!!! Estuvo muy bien este festival, el escenario,

las interpretaciones... It was good this festival, the stage,

performances ...Ya veremos que tal el proximo año en Alemania! We

will see that this next year in Germany! (Locote23 , May 2010)

19. i love this from Miro; ja volim ovo od njega; ich mag das voll

von dem das lied für oslo (Eurovision,TheSilni)

20. Very stupid song!!!! ne mogu da verujem da je ovo favorit :@@@@

do you have ears!?!?!?! (qsefm, Eurovision SongContest 2010)

21. lena wird das schaffen !!! i am from germany but i think

that she doesnt can sing. jennifer braun was better but lena won

unser star für oslo and so she is singing for germany :

(TheCrazypinkgirl , Eurovision SongContest 2010,)

Comparing the results from the analysis of YS corpus with that

of adult speakers, one cannot fail to notice that YS discourse

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheCrazypinkgirl

http://www.youtube.com/user/qsefm

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSilni

http://www.youtube.com/user/Locote23

includes much greater diversity of code-mixing strategies forming

patterns that for their large part do not have counterparts in

mainstream discourse. Although much of the mixing and crossing of

languages appears haphazard and functionally unmotivated it seems

socially well grounded as an efficient instrument for leveling

cultural differences and building a global identity. In part, the

social significance of this “hotchpotch” style of speaking I have

labeled Globe Talk entails from young speakers’ sensitivity to

novelty , in particular, to the transformations brought about by

processes of globalization. As already noted, polycentric,

hybridized practices and structures are a key characteristics of

today’s globalizing world, and Globe Talk, as a specific YS

style, bears the hallmarks of that world. I find this in no way

surprising since this interconnected and intermixed world is

young people’s natural milieu, the only reality they have

experienced and accept as normal.

The social meaning of this rather peculiar by mainstream

standards way of speaking may also be associated with young

people’s unwillingness to subscribe to just one cultural semiotic

system but open their minds, and hearts, instead to the

kaleidoscope of world cultures and lifestyles. Thus the motley

concoction of mannerisms and structures borrowed from elsewhere

that make Globe Talk appear culturally “footloose” and owing

loyalty to no one becomes loaded with meanings indexical of the

most progressive trends of the time. Rather than being

stigmatized as a “crossbreed” therefore, Globe Talk evokes

sympathies for being strikingly innovative and creative in its

own way.

The implication that follows with respect to the ideologies the

two communities seem to adhere to is that they are different in

principle. In AS discourse, code mixing strategies occur as an

additional resource that bilingual/multilingual speakers utilize

to achieve specific communicative goals, to bring into prominence

aspects of their identity, or simply, to add colour to their

performance. The high frequencies of code-mixing strategies in

their speech notwithstanding, adult speakers maintain their

loyalty to the local discursive patterns and adhere to local

cultural semiotics in their representation and interpretation of

real-life events. In this sense, we may conclude that “normality”

in AS discourse is associated with continuity and code-mixing is

mainly employed for the purposes of stretching the flexibility of

local models to make them more resilient to external pressures in

globalization.

Contrariwise in YS discourse, the thrust is definitely to

“discontinue the narrative” (Giddens 1991:54) rooted in local

culture and tradition and build identity free from emotional

affiliation with the locality. Young people want to enjoy to the

fullest extent the opportunities for self-actualization that the

world provides. Besides, they understand self-actualization not

as “community membership”, “cultural belonging” or “commonality

of interest” but as an opportunity to enjoy the plurality of

cultural and discourse choices that they can gain an access to

largely through the mediation of electronic media. Consequently

in YS discourse, “normality” is associated with discontinuity and

transgression, with aspirations for breaking away from the “bondage”

of local tradition and bridging spaces across cultural

boundaries.

Naturally, the ideological differences in YS and AS discourses

reflect on their style of speaking/ writing, respectively, on the

strategies of code-mixing and switching which have gained in

importance as an alternative resource in discourses of

globalization. So in the next section I shall cross-check my

conclusions through analysis of the language of the two

magazines, High-Club and WOMAN, which, as mentioned, are targeted

to readers of the two communities of interest.

7. Code-mixing strategies (CMSs) in WOMAN and High-Club

The analysis in the previous section has clearly shown that

speakers from both AS and YS groups consider CMSs6 as a valuable

strategy resource they can freely draw upon when faced with a

communicative or social problem. At first blush, this appears to

be typical behaviour of bilinguals whereupon it does not make

much sense to cross-check findings through analysis of printed

texts targeted at predominantly monolingual readership. However,

as I have noted in the discussion on the impact of globalization,

the sociolinguistic landscape of local spaces has been anglicized

to such an extent that all people have practically been compelled

6 Code-mixing is used as an umbrella term to cover all cases of mixing, switching or crossing of languages.

to pick up some English, at least to the level of “folk

bilingualism”. Consequently, following the principle of

“responsiveness to the audience” (Bell 2001:145) it might be

presumed that writers for the printed media have changed their

style to be more like that of the people they are writing for.

This justifies the use of printed texts for cross-checking my

findings from the previous analysis..

In the course of the analysis I intend to check whether the

established distinctions in the use of CMSs by adult and young

speakers, respectively, will also be found in the printed texts

addressed to readers from the respective groups. Further, given

that a large part of the magazines’ readerships will probably

fall under the heading “folk bilinguals”, I shall also probe into

the editorial policy of each of the examined magazines towards

their monolingual readers: whether they provide any support

strategies to help readers resolve their understanding problems,

or, they consider monolingualism a handicap that readers ought to

overcome on their own.

a) Code-mixing strategies in the women’s magazine “WOMAN”

The corpus excerpted from WOMAN magazine consists of 251 text

samples but since most of them contain more than one CMS, the

data about strategy distribution across domains do not overlap

with that number. (cf. Table 1).

Domain Description Number of

cases

Pop-music Names of singers, bands, singles,

LPs, songs, DJs, music companies,

music styles, music terms

90

Beauty and

body-building

Products, company names,

application and effects, treatment,

etc

103

Lifestyle 113

TV and show programmes,

location

18

Films and film stars 15

Shopping–goods, shops,

companies

49

Cuisine and beverages 31

Fashion Pieces of clothing, design

companies, designers

39

Other Borrowings, geographical places 32

Table 1. Distribution of CMSs in “WOMAN” (ASD)

According to the adduced evidence, code-mixing (CM) occurs in

practically every domain covered in the magazine but with some

variation in the patterns. In the Beauty and Body-building sections,

where code-mixing seems to be the most frequent, the tendency is

for all product/ brand names and company names to appear in the

language of origin (e.g. 22, 23). This seems to be regarded as

“unmarked” use of CM probably because most of the products are

world known brands, their foreign names are widely known and

hence they are not deemed innocuous for comprehension. There

are, though, some more meticulous authors who provide

transliteration of the names in Cyrillic (e.g. GinkoVin (гинковин))

obviously to emphasize their concern for their readers’

comprehension problems. Thus the shift in scripts becomes

indexical of a specific socio-pragmatic force of solidarity with

readers.

22. Суперхидратация HYDRA COMPLETE MULTI-LEVEL MOISTURE CRÈME на ESTEE

LAUDER удовлетворява кожата …

[Super hydration HYDRA COMPLETE MULTI-LEVEL MOISTURE CRÈME by ESTEE LAUDER

is good for your skin…]

23. Лавандулов крем LAVANDE ESSENTIELLE на YVES ROSHER който подхранва

кожата на краката [ Lavender cream LAVANDE ESSENTIELLE by YVES ROSHER that

nourishes the skin of your legs]

The second most numerous group of CMSs comes from the domain of

pop-music. Again, CMSs may be used for all sorts of reasons - to

refer to singers, bands, DJs and music companies; to introduce

songs and music albums; to comment on music styles, performances,

concerts and settings, and so forth – differing largely in the

patterning. For instance in the presentation of music companies,

the tendency is to stick to the name, English or Bulgarian, they

are familiar with. Thus the company label Вирджиния рекърдс is

transliterated in Bulgarian whereas Sony Music Entertainment is not

though both are Bulgarian. The principle of familiarity seems

also to govern the presentation of settings and locations

whereupon the name of the Royal Albert Hall in London is

transliterated as “Роял Албърт Хол” whilst a club in Sofia is

referred to in English (cf. Sofia Live Club). Names of music styles

are all transliterated, presumably because they are treated as

borrowings already well integrated into Bulgarian (24).

Similarly, singers’ names are for the most part transliterated in

the Cyrillic (25) but music products – songs, albums, CDs and so

forth - are all referred to in English. This seems surprising at

first glance, given the comprehension challenges that song titles

are likely to pose. I am inclined to think that this is due to

the high level of commercialization of popular music today

whereupon a song title is perceived as a kind of logo that can

sell the music piece around the world. Consequently, translating

or transliterating song titles might be regarded as impingement

upon the authenticity of the product. At the same time, whether

or not the message a song title conveys is properly interpreted

seems to be of secondary importance. A similar pattern of CMS

distribution can also be observed in texts about films, TV and

show programmes but code-mixing is much less frequent in these

domains.

24. Музикантите смесват метъл, поп, фънк, диско, готика и фолк с арабски и

ориенталски влияния.

[The musicians mix metal, pop, funk, disco, gothic and folk with Arabic and oriental

effects.]

25. В “Ladies Night” са събрани известните изп ълнителки от музикалната

сцена. Настроението идва от денспесни като “That don’t impress me much”

наШаная Туейн, “Only if I” на Кейт Раян, “ I won’t change you” Софи Елис-

Бекстър и “Superstar” на Джамелия.

[Ladies Night is a collection of songs by eminent singers. Dance songs like “

That don’t impress me much” by Shinaya Twain, “Only if I “ by Kate Ryan, … …set the

mood.)

In the “fashion” rubrics, the tendency is for designers’ and

company names to be rendered in English, whereas articles are

preferably referred to in Bulgarian. Switches to English occur

in descriptions of fashion trends and styles (26, 27), and the

embedded English phrases are often explained or translated into

Bulgarian (28).

26. Стилът “Tomboy” винаги е бил популярен сред определени

субкултури, /.../Сред популярните почитателки на “Tomboy” са Гуен Стефани,

Кейт Босуърд, Ванеса Паради ...

[‘Tomboy’ style has always been popular in some sub-cultures…. Some eminent

‘Tomboy’ followers are Gwen Stefani, Vanessa Paradi.…]

27. Unisex очилата се определята като фаворити.

[Unisex glasses are among the favourites.]

28. …т.н. kостюми „ cut ou t” сега са още по-търсени /…/. Актуални са и

банските изобщо без презрамка (strapless ).

[…the so-called “cut-out” (swimming) suits are a great hit…suits without straps

(strapless) are also quite trendy]

The dominance of English notwithstanding, the language policy

of the magazine seems to be to maintain a multilingual base of

code-mixing. This is most clearly visible in the Food and Drinks

section where foreign dishes and drinks are almost always

introduced with their original names often with some additional

information about the history of the name. For instance, in an

article The pancake from Paris to Bangkok the author has provided

twenty different names for “pancakes” around the world. This

lends a certain cosmopolitan tone to the magazine and tallies

well with postmodern trends towards convergence and mutual

enrichment of cultural patterns.

From a functional perspective, CM strategies occur in diverse

discourse and pragmatic acts. A feature that most of them share,

however, is that they are focused on the reader and tend to be

paralleled by some kind of support strategy to facilitate

understanding of the imported foreignisms. The following list of

the most frequent acts identified in the examined corpus offers a

good illustration of the reader-oriented style of the magazine.

a) Acts of direct reference – the foreign name is used without any

additional support to help monolingual readers identify the

object of reference . These are usually well-known company or

brand names. 29. Parlophone Records представиха премиерата на “Go ” , свежия и

безстрашен албум на Jonsy , който е лидерът на прекраcната банда Sigur

Ros.

[Parlophone Records presented Go the fresh and daring album by Jonsy who is the

leader of the great band Sigur Ros.]

b) Identification acts – acts including a Bulgarian label of the

class or category that the foreign element can be referred to and

identified more easily (30 a, b, c, d) 30. a. с филтърната батерия Clear Tap можете да бъдете сигурни, че водата ви в

къщи ще бъде чиста.

[cf. Clear Tap is a kind of filter tap]

b. денсформация Дейнджърс [

[Dangers is the name of a dance-formation]

c. рокаджиите Stone Temple Pilots издават едноименен албум следващата

седмица

[Stone Temple Pilots are rock musicians…]

d. … а програмата Just You при съдомиялните измива за 40 минути съдовете от

деня.

[…and JUST YOU programme can wash the dishes from the day in just 40 minutes.

…]

c. Elaboration acts - acts in which the embedded structure is

preceded or followed by some kind of qualification that can help

a monolingual reader get a general idea of its meaning, function

or significance. Thus in example (29) above, we can understand

that “Go” is a “fresh-sounding and brave” album by Jonsy and

that Jonsy himself is “ the leader of the great band “ “Sigur

Ros”. Also, in example (31) one can get a clue about the meaning

of “Crazy Bubbles products” from the explanation that follows,

namely, that they include “an active shower gel for waking up GET

UP “MORNING” and another one suitable for the evenings WHAT’S UP

“EVENING”. In fact, the aim in using an elaboration strategy is

not to give a semantic or functional equivalent of the borrowed

expression but rather to bring into prominence a quality or

function of the product that is being referred to and thus make

it more easily identifiable.

31. В продуктите CRAZY BUBBLES ще откриете активния душ гел за

пробуждане GET UP “MORNING ” и подходящия за вечерта WHAT’S UP “EVENING”.

[ In (the set of ) CRAZY BUBBLES products you can find an active shower

gel for waking up GET UP “MORNING” and another one suitable for the

evenings WHAT’S UP “EVENING”.]

d. Reiteration/ repetition acts - acts in which the embedded structure

is paralleled by a Bulgarian expression that repeats, partially

or completely, the meaning of the foreign structure (32). The

aim of repetition strategies is generally to help understanding

but it is also possible to signal some pragmatic meaning. See,

for instance example (33) where the co-occurrence of “net” and

its Bulgarian counterpart “мрежа” is used by the speaker to

juxtapose the world of Nature to that of technology attributing

some pragmatic presuppositions to the contrast.

32.На върха в тази класация е така нареченото ледено вино –

Ice Wine, което се прави от замръзнало грозде.

[The rank list is topped by the so called “Ice Wine” – “Ice Wine”, which

is made from frozen grapes]

33.… бях на място, където миризмите са само естествени, а

единствения нет са мрежите на рибарите. (нет (nets) – мрежи

(nets))

[…I was at a place where there are only smells coming

from Nature and the only net is the fishing net.]

d. quotation acts – acts in which the foreign structure is

introduced by some kind of a reporting expression, e.g. say, the so

called, etc. (34a, b).

34.a. През 1991,… уморена от разводите си, казала „гуд бай”

на Ню Йорк и си купила …средновековен замък …

[In 1991, … tired of her divorces she said “Good-bye” to New York and

bought a… castle].

b. Сладкиши, които съдържат ябълки /…/са чудесен партньор на

така наречените Late Harvest вина : Vouvrays – Франция, ризлинг

от Германия, …

[Apple pies /…/ go perfectly well with the so called Late Harvest Wines:

Vouvrays – France, Riesling from Germany, …].

e. translation acts – acts in which the English insertion is

translated into Bulgarian. Unlike elaboration and repetition

where the aim is to provide additional information about the

product itself, in this case the focus is on the name (35 a). The

irony is that sometimes the Bulgarian translation equivalent is

utterly useless for the proper understanding of the advertized

product. See for instance example (35b) where the provided

translation of “Growling dog’ actually refers to a kind of

energy drink.

35.a . “Красивото направено добре” – това е девизът на

италианските дизайнери във времето, когато всичко се продава

с етикет Made in Europe ( произведено в Европа ).

[“Beautiful made well” this is the Italian designers’

motto when all products on the market bear the tag “Made

in Europe”]

b. Growling dog („Ръмжащо куче”) ще ви държи винаги във

върхова форма [Growling dog will keep you always fit]

f. extension acts – acts in which a foreign abbreviation is

extended to facilitate understanding but again with doubtful

effect as far as monolingu al readers are concerned.

36.Методът IQS (I Quit Smoking) обещава, че това е възможно.

[The IQS (I quit smoking) method says it is possible.]

The results from the brief analysis of code-mixing in the

corpus excerpted from the WOMAN magazine come to show that the

use of CMSs is by and large functionally motivated and in

compliance with some established patterns. There is nothing out

of the ordinary in the functions ascribable to CMSs, either. They

serve mostly as an additional strategy resource for signalling

specific socio-pragmatic meanings and presuppositions such as

emphasizing products’ authenticity or consonance with world

trends, expressing solidarity with and sensitivity to readers’

emotional and practical needs, or generally, building an image of

a trustworthy source of information. Writers tend to impose

certain regularity in the enactment of activities involving

foreignisms judiciously selecting and accommodating foreign

elements into established patterns of language use. They not only

avoid unjustified crossing of Bulgarian and English entities and

unwelcome hybrid usages that might cause comprehension problems

but also provide readers with extra support to enhance

understanding. In short, the magazine’s policy appears firmly

centred on the locality, aiming to provide readers with a compass

that can safely direct them through the jungle of foreign ideas,

concepts, products or values inundating their environment as a

result of globalization. Its local-orientedness notwithstanding,

WOMAN’s style is far from being immersed in rigid

traditionalism, remaining blind to the running processes of

change. Rather, the magazine’s language policy is focused on

readers who are going through profound social and cultural

changes and need to be provided with landmarks to help them

evaluate, select and appropriate only what is really significant

for them to find their rightful place in the transforming world

without feeling robbed of the coherence and stability of the

system serving as their point of reference. In sum, the

magazine’s style seems to abide by the same principle of

“normality” that has been identified in the analysis of AS’s

speech performance. Indeed in the context of globalization,

mainstream understanding of “normality” is marked by considerable

ambiguity triggered by the need to maintain sociocultural

coherence and, at the same time, adapt to the rapidly changing

milieu. However, the resulting vacillation between local and

global discursive frames in mainstream ways of speaking seems

quite different from the speech style defined as Globe Talk or the

speech behaviour of what Parekh defines as the “nomadic culture

voyager driven by a morbid fear of anything that is coherent,

stable, has history and involves discipline “(2000:150).

a) Code-mixing strategies in the teenage magazine “HIGH-CLUB”

To complete the cross-check, we finally need to see whether,

and to what extent, the specific youth speech style is reflected

in the teenagers’ magazine High-club bearing in mind the

constraints imposed by the different channels of communication.

Globe Talk, as mentioned, occurs largely in electronic

interaction while the magazine texts follow the norms of written

styles. The noted differences however do not exclude the

possibility of parallelism on more general levels of style-

building such as framing of events, creating images, placing

values or managing relations. All the more so when we consider

the fact that it is in performing such building tasks that the

appropriation of global discursive frames stands out most

clearly.

The analysis shows that there is little difference in the types

of CMSs deployed in the two magazines which may be attributed to

shared written norms. Yet, the social meanings conveyed through

these strategies tend to differ substantially which is a clear

signal that the magazines are targeted on different readerships.

In WOMAN, the mixing of codes is largely employed as a strategy

of empowerment or to signal authenticity of the cultural

information provided. In High-club, CMS use seems motivated by the

editor team’s desire to tune in to readers’ affinity for a more

kaleidoscopic presentation of events, people, news, gossip or

cultural products from all over the world. The ideals of

“informedness”, “knowledgeability” or genuineness of the

information provided evoking undisputed credibility in the adult

magazine tend to be superseded in High –club by ideals of

solidarity, camaraderie and rapport amongst all young people who

aspire to a world where one’s own culture is viewed as part of

world culture and all cultures and peoples are equally important.

The ideal of a “world without borders” that the magazine seems to

be committed to brings into prominence the “third space” of Globe

Talk where the “we/ they” distinction is blurred and speakers are

encouraged to experiment with new ways of thinking and building

discourses via transgression of established norms, appropriation

and hybridization of local and trans-local entities in an effort

to defy all differences and inequalities that cripple social

relations.

The idea of crossing over of entities of local and global

importance is operationalized through a number of stylistic

techniques.

On a more general plane, this function is performed by some

interactive rubrics - “Your story”, “Fan Zone”, “Ned’s Zone”,

and “Dr Teen” - aimed to involve readers in the writing process

and give them a chance to show off their creativity in Globe

Talk. In their writings, the readers of the magazine, gently

referred to as“хайклубчета” (a newly coined word, a diminutive

form of High-club members), use code-mixing as a major strategy

of identity building and signaling membership.

Another frequent use of CMSs is in framing events and

activities. A characteristic feature of these uses is that the

embedded “English islands” rarely introduce foreign entities but

rather serve to index commonalities between global and local

social activities in an interconnected world. This impression is

strengthened by the regular occurrence of CMSs unsupported by

translation into Bulgarian apparently to undermine the importance

of language boundaries for intercultural communication in the

community. Thus in example (37), we see a Bulgarian musician

referred to by his English nickname, arguably adopted to furnish

an identity in a “made for the world” style deemed indispensable

for gaining recognition on such popular world web sites as

YouTube or Eurovision. Examples (38) and (39), in turn, provide

an illustration of speakers’ disposition to play with the

languages in contact in their own creative way producing texts

that might well baffle even competent readers lacking the

necessary cultural information.

37. ... песента събира Лора с колегата и от Bellface,

GoodSlav , който написа текста и музиката …

[The song brought together Lora and her colleague GoodSlav from Bellface,

who wrote the music and lyrics …]

38. DJ took Албена away

[reference is made to the title of the Bulgarian song for the 2009Eurovision song contest “DJ Take me Away” performed by DJ Balthasar’s band;

Albena is his wife]

39. Big Boi от Outcast си няма ябълка , затова пък бамбук

колкото щеш. Bamboo е името на сина му роден през 2000.

[Big Boi from Outcast hasn’t got an apple (reference is made to Gwinnet

Paltraw’s daughter’s name mentioned earlier) but he’s got bamboo in

abundance. Bamboo is his son’s name born in 2000.]

Code-mixing is also a widely used device for signaling

solidarity and community membership. A common strategy for this

purpose, occurring in this magazine alone, is to create zones of

intertextuality based on English-Bulgarian crossovers. The imported

phrases, rendered in the original, or translated into Bulgarian,

are commonly popular song or film titles (40) and a lot of these

mergers deserve credit for their bravery and inventiveness. Yet,

they might also face monolingual readers with genuine

comprehension problems if they are not familiar with the meaning

of the imported entities. Put another way, to merge together

elements whose history is rooted in different cultures is a real

comprehension challenge and the choice of the strategy can only

be justified if it serves to strengthen community ties or support

members’ claims for “world citizenship”. I reckon this is exactly

the purpose for its frequent use in the youth magazine to enhance

the feeling of solidarity and camaraderie amongst community

members.

40. Материалното момиче ще е една от първите пътнички на

космическия самолет „Спейсшип 2”. Не дай си боже, космонавтката да

остане не само 4 Minutes, а във вечна орбита около Земята, някъде

там Miles Away.

[The material girl will be one of the first passengers on “Spaceship2” spaceship. God

forbid if the astronaut stayed there not just 4 Minutes but went in an

everlasting orbit round the Earth, somewhere there Miles Away]

Predominantly socio-pragmatic is also the motivation for the

occurrence of CMSs in quotes. In this corpus there are no

quotations used to clarify meanings as was the case in the adult

magazine. They are largely used here as a stylistic device to

signal writers’ attitudes and emotions (41, 42).

41. Идваше ми да изкрещя на улицата „Yeah, знаех си!”

[I felt like shouting in the street, “Yeah, I knew it!”]

42. Ooops! Ooops! Матю Бродърик ... си направил собствена риалити

вeрсия на шоуто (Сексът и градът)…

[Ooops! Ooops! Mathew Broderick has organized his own reality version ofthe show (Sex and the City)…]

To recapitulate, the role and functions of English in the

teenage magazine seem to be quite different from those identified

in WOMAN. Rather than merely reproduce locally approved CM

patterns as a way to achieve an effect of authenticity and

elitism, the policy of High-club editorial team is to challenge the

status quo and defy language barriers to understanding. This is

made manifest in the indexical uses of English to signify

affiliation with personalities, events and trends of cosmopolitan

relevance and, more importantly, to evoke in readers feelings of

commonality and solidarity with likeminded people from all over

the world. Socially motivated are also the occurrences of English

in readers’ contributions to the interactive rubrics, where CMSs

are utilized for identity building or as “membership tags” of the

High-club community of practice.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, the adopted approach to investigating Global

English from a local perspective reveals that its spread in local

spaces is concomitant to, and instrumental of, complex

integration processes whereby limiting scientific debate to the

effects of globalization on the language alone is sure to leave

a lot of interesting social phenomena unaccounted for. In fact,

English permeates local spaces through the masses of

transcultural, transnational meanings, images, values and

products of popular culture that flow in and out of localities

and emerges in a variety of hybrid structures that are socially

rather than communicatively motivated. Compelled to seek

additional resources to cope with the transformations of their

environment brought about by globalization processes, local

people readily appropriate elements from English as the

recognized “vehicle” of global culture. In addition, the running

processes of economic and sociopolitical interlinking that are

progressively blurring existing cultural distinctions impact on

people’s ideological beliefs about language relationships and

norms of use. Thus the diverse mixings, blends, crossings and all

other sorts of hybrids between English and local language

varieties, traditionally stigmatized as instances of incompetence

or carelessness, acquire new social meaning and begin to be

treated as exemplars of creativity and innovativeness. The

analysis has shown however that these developments are unevenly

distributed across social communities which brings into relief

the importance of variability studies of the world use of

English.

In her Matrix Language Model of Code-switching, Myers-Scotton

draws a distinction between unmarked, that is, in compliance with

receivers’ expectations, and marked code-switching, such that is

perceived to require negotiation of meaning due to violation of

established “rights and obligations” set of norms (1993:479). In

the course of the analysis I have shown that the CMSs in the

adult speech corpora are predominantly of the unmarked type,

whereas those in the adolescent corpora tend to be of the marked

type. Accordingly, I have ascribed the noted distinction to

differences between AS and YS discourse ideologies.

In adult discourse, constructed very much after the fashion of

local practices of language use, the norms that guide writers’

choices as to what is “normal”, “correct”, “appropriate”, or

“beautiful” comply with local sociocultural patterns of behaviour

and with discursive frames and systems of meaning perceived to

make up the common cultural base of the Bulgarian society.

Respectively, the embedded English entities do not, as a rule,

threaten understanding, neither do they affect speakers’ social

membership status. The occurrence of English in AS discourse

appears to be a corollary of the current expansion of

bilingualism/ multilingualism due to globalization and its

functions are largely associated with the expression of power and

authenticity. Put another way, speakers utilize English as a

specific tool of empowerment and prestige to create a public

image of informed and knowledgeable members of society seeking

new horizons for thought and action.

In contrast, in teenagers’ Globe Talk style imported English

entities are mixed with local forms in a fashion meant to signal

speakers’ willingness to go against rather than to obey norms. Or

following Blommaert’s “scale” metaphor, we may define GT style

as “out-scaled” which means that it has been “lifted to a scaleinaccessible to others” (2007:3). GT could not be readily

associated with either local communication patterns or globally-

oriented practices of English use although it contains elements

of both. Rather, it should be referred to a kind of “third”

semiotic space where fragmentation and incoherence of talk and

action are accepted as normal, where relations unrestricted by

rules of discipline or culture-bound norms of conduct are deemed

appropriate, where overstepping the limits of grammar is hailed

as creative and innovative, and finally, where networking with

like-minded people from the four corners of the world is a matter

of supreme importance. The code mixing strategies observed in

adolescents’ GT speech bear little resemblance to those used by

adult bilingual users. A large part of the English elements

occurring in GT have been appropriated via globally-oriented

products of culture and technology circulating the globe “clad in

English costumes” and through repetitive use in young people’s

communities of practice have become an indispensable part of

communities’ competence. So in YS discourse, English is not just

an additional resource of expression means, a symbol of

empowerment and prestige. It is part of young speakers’ “tools of

the trade”. Accordingly, they feel free to play with it, to bend

it, mix it or cross it with all language resources they possess

to index particular social meanings. More often than not however,

the occurrence of English elements has no other function but to

serve as an “insider “ tag for particular communities of

practice.

In view of the significant overlap in the code-mixing

strategies deployed in the magazines I have used to cross-check

my findings, I have no grounds to suggest that YS and AS

discourse are in conflict or that mutual intelligibility is

threatened in some way. Nevertheless, the noted differences are

interesting and numerous enough to justify studies of the

variable uses of English in local spaces.

References:

Alexieva, Nevena (2005). How borrowings cross linguistic borders and fill lexical gaps. In Georgieva, Maria (ed.) Spaces, gaps, borders: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Bulgarian Society for British Studies (2003), vol II. 37 – 43. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.

Alptekin, Cep ( 2002). Towards Intercultural Communicative Competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56/1: 57 – 64.

Bell, Allan (2001). Back in style: reworking audience design. In Eckert Penelope and John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, 139 – 169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bhatt, Rakesh M. (1995). Prescriptivism, creativity and world Englishes. World Englishes, 14/2: 247 – 259.

Bhatt, Rakesh M. (2008). “In other words: Language mixing, identity representations, and third space”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (2): 177 – 200.

Bhatt, Rakesh M. (2010). World Englishes, globalization and the politics of conformity. In Saxena Mukul and Tope Omoniyi (eds.), Contending with globalization in World Englishes, 93 – 112. Bristol:Multilingual Matters.

Block, David. (2002). ‘McCommunication’: A problem in the frame for SLA. In Block, David and Deborah Cameron (eds.), Globalization and language teaching, 117 – 133. London: Routledge.

Blommaert, Jan (2007). Sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics,4-1:1-19.

Bruthiaux, Paul (2006). Restandardizing localized Englishes: aspirations and limitations. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 31 – 49.

Bucholz, Mary and Kira Hall (2008). Finding identity: theory and data. Multilingua 27: 151 – 163.

Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2002). Globalization, methods, and practice in periphery classrooms. In Block, David and Deborah Cameron (eds.), Globalization and language teaching, 134 – 150. London: Routledge .

Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2006). Negotiating the local in English asa lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 26: 197 – 218.

Cogo, Alessia (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In Mauranen, Annaand Elina Ranta (eds.) English as a lingua franca: studies and findings, 254 –273. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambrdge scholars publishing.

Crystal, D. ([1997]2003). English as a Global Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Danchev, Andrey (1981). The Anglicisms in Bulgarian. Contrastive Linguistics, III/6:21 – 33. (in Bulgarian).

De Costa, Peter (2010). Let’s collaborate: using developments in global English research to advance socioculturally-oriented SLA identity work. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18 /1: 99 – 124.

Dewey, Martin (2007). English as a lingua franca and globalization: an interconnected perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17/3:332 – 354.

Dewey, Martin and Jennifer Jenkins (2010). English as a lingua franca in the global context: interconnectedness, variation and change. In Saxena Mukul and Tope Omoniyi (eds.) Contending with globalization in World Englishes, 72 – 92. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Dimova, S. (2008). English in Macedonian commercial nomenclature. World Englishes, 27(1): 83-100.

Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Eckert, Penelope and Étienne Wenger (2005). What is the role of power in sociolinguistic variation? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9/4: 582– 589.

Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, Norman (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge

Fairclough, Norman (2006). Language and Globalization. London: Routledge.

Ferguson, Gibson (2009). Issues in researching English as a linguafranca: a conceptual enquiry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19/2: 117 – 135.

Firth, Alan (2009). The lingua franca factor, Intercultural Pragmatics, 6/2: 147 – 170.

Flowerdew, J. (2002). Globalization Discourse: a view from the east. Discourse and Society. 13/2 : 209 – 225.

Frătilă, Loredana ( 2005). Is the Romanian VIVA! Magazine entirelyRomanian? In Georgieva, Maria (ed.) Spaces, Gaps, Borders: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Bulgarian Society for British Studies, 2003, volII. 28 – 36. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.

Gardner-Chloros, Penelope (1997). Code-switching: Language Selection in Three Strasbourg Department Stores. In Coupland, Nicholas & Adam Jaworski (eds). Sociolinguistics. 361 – 375. London: Macmillan Press.

Gardner-Chloros, Penelope, Reeva Charles & Jenny Cheshire (2000). Parallel Patterns? A comparison of monolingual speech and bilingual code switching discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 32:1305 – 1341.

Gee, James P. 2005, An introduction to Discourse Analysis, 2 ed. , London: Routledge.

Georgieva, Maria (2005). English as a converging and diverging force in sociocultural relations. In Maria Georgieva (ed.) Spaces, Gaps, Borders: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Bulgarian Society for British Studies, 2003. 63 – 74. Sofia: St Kliment Ohridski University Press.

Georgieva, Maria (2009). Communication strategies as vehicles of intercultural border crossing, Intercultural Pragmatics, vol 6/3: 291 – 314.

Georgieva, Maria (2010). Globe Talk – Constructed by and Constructing Globalization. In Georgieva, Maria and Allan James (eds.). Globalization in English Studies. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.

Georgieva, Maria (2010a). EFL: from You Sound Like Dickens toInternational English, in Saxena, Mukul and Tope Omoniyi (Eds.).Contending with Globalization in World Englishes. 163 – 182. Bristol:Multilingual Matters.

Georgieva, Maria (2010 b). Global English and communicative language teaching. In Frătilă, Loredana and Hortensia Parlog

(Eds.). Language in use: the case of youth entertainment magazines. 137 – 161. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Giddens, Anthony (1991). Modernity & Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giles, Howard, Mary McIlrath, Antony Mulac and Robert M. McCann (2010). Expressing age salience: three generations’ reported events, frequencies, and valences, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 206:73 – 91.

Graddol, David (1997). The Future of English? London: The British Council.

Graddol, David (2006). English Next. London: British Council.Gumperz, John (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hall, Stuart (1992). The Question of Cultural Identity. In Stuart Hall, David Held and Tony McGrew (eds.). Modernity and its Futures, 273 – 325. Cambridge: The Open University.

Hilmarsson-Dunn, Amanda (2010). The impact of Global English on language policy for the media: the case of Iceland, in Georgieva,Maria and Allan James (eds.) Globalization in English Studies. 2 – 22. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Hjarvard, Stig (2004). The Globalization of Language: How the Media Contribute to the Spread of English and the emergence of Medialects. Nordicom Review, 1-2: 75-97.

Holland, Robert (2002). Globospeak? Questioning text on the Role of English as a global Language. Language and Intercultural Communication , 2 /1: 5-24.

House, Juliane ( 2003). English as a lingua franca: a threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7 /4 :556 – 578.

James, Allan 2008, New Englishes as Post-Geographic Englishes in Lingua Franca Use: Genre, interdiscursivity and late modernity. European Journal of English Studies, 12 /1: 97 – 112.

Jenkins, Jennifer ( 2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF andSLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 16/2: 137 – 162.

Jenkins, Jennifer (2006a). Current Perspectives on Teaching WorldEnglishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40/1: 157 – 181.

Johnstone, Barbara (2008 [2002]). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Kachru, B. Braj (1985), Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle, in Randolf Quirk and Henry Widdowson (eds). English in the World: teaching and learning the language and literatures. 11 – 30 . Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Kachru B. Braj and Cesil L. Nelson (1996). World Englishes, in McKay, Sandra L. & Nancy. H. Hornberger (eds.). Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. 71 – 102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kachru, Braj B. (2003 [1991]). Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern. English Today 25/3:3-13. Reprinted in Seidlhofer, Barbara (ed.). Controversies in Applied Linguistics. 19 - 33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, Claire and Steven L. Thorne (2002). Foreign Language learning as global communicative practice, in Block, David and Deborah Cameron ( eds.). Globalization and Language Teaching. 83 – 100. London: Routledge.

Kristiansen, Tore (2010). Conscious and subconscious attitudes towards English influence in the Nordic countries: evidence for two levels of language ideology. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 204: 59 – 95.

Kubota, Ryuko (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In Block, David and Deborah Cameron ( eds.). Globalization and Language Teaching. 13 - 28. London: Routledge.

Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leonardi, Vanessa (2010). The effects of globalization on Italianspecialized language: the case of Anglicisms in job advertisements. In Georgieva, Maria and Allan James (eds.). Globalization in English Studies. 157 – 177. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Low, B., M. Sarkar & L.Winer (2009).‘Ch’us mon proper Bescherelle’: Challenges from the Hip-hop nation to the Quebec nation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13/1: 59-8.2.

McArthur, Tom (1998). The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, Sandra L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meierkord, Christiane (2006). Lingua franca communication: past and present. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177: 9-30.

Myers-Scotton, Carol (1993). Common and uncommon ground: Social and Structural Factors in Codeswitching. Language in Society, 22/ 4, 475-503.

Myers-Scotton, Carol (1999). Explaining the role of norms and rationality in code-switching. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 1259 – 1271.

Myers-Scotton, Carol and Agnes Bolonyai (2001). Calculating speakers: Codeswitching in a Rational Choice Model . Language in Society. 30/1: 1-.28.

Omoniyi, Tope (2006). Hip-hop through the world Englishes lens: a response to globalization. World Englishes, 25/2: 195-208.

Parlog, Hortensia (2000). The anglo-fashion. In Catalan, Zelma, Christo Stamenov, and Evgenia Pancheva (eds.). Seventy Years of English and American Studies in Bulgaria: Papers of the International Conference held in Sofia, 1-3 October 1998. 93 – 99. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.

Parlog, Hortensia and Loredana Frătilă ( 2010). The Language of Youth Magazines. In L. Fratila & H. Parlog (Eds.). Language in use: the case of youth entertainment magazines. 43 – 79. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Pennycook, Alastair. (2003). Global Englishes, Rip Slyme, and performativity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7/4: 513 – 533.

Pennycook, Aastair ( 2007). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge .

Pennycook, Alastair (2008). English as a language always in translation. European Journal of English Studies. 12/1: 33 – 47.

Phillipson, Robert (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Piller, Ingrid (2002). Passing for a native speaker: identity and success in second language learning. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6/2:179 – 206.

Pölzl, Ulrike and Barbara Seidlhofer (2006). In and on their ownterms: the ‘habitat factor’ in English as a lingua francainteractions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 177: 151 –176.

Quirk, Randolph (1990/2003). Language Varieties and Standard Language. In Seidlhofer, Barbara (ed.). Controversies in Applied Linguistics. 9 - 19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rampton, Ben (1999). Language crossing and the redefinition of reality. In Auer, P. (ed.) Code-Switching in Conversation. 290 – 317. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.

Saxena, Mukul and Tope Omonuiy (eds.) (2010). Contending with globalization in World Englishes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Seidlhofer, Barbara (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca, International Journal of Applied Linguistics.11/2: 133 – 158.

Seidlhofer, Barbara, Angelika Breiteneder, and Marie-Luise Pitzl (2006). English as a Lingua Franca in Europe: Challenges for Applied Linguistics, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 26: 3 – 34.

Shen, Qi (2009). Globalization of English and English language policies in East Asia: a comparative perspective. Canadian Social Science. 5/3: 111 – 120.

Sridhar, Kamal K. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In McKay, Sandra L. and Nancy H. Hornberger (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. 47 – 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Svavarsdottir, Ásta, Ulla Paatola and Helge Sandøy ( 2010). English influence on the spoken language – with a special focus on its social, semantic and functional conditioning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 204: 43 – 58.

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Vassileva, Irena (2010). Scientific communication in multimedia environments – intertextual and interdiscursive features. In Georgieva, Maria and Allan James (eds.). Globalization in English Studies.178 – 190. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Winford, Donald (2007). Some issues in the study of language contact, Journal of Language Contact, THEMA 1: 22 – 40.

i Originally published in Georgieva, M. (2011), Global English in Bulgarian Context, ch. 6, 123 – 153, Varna: Silueti Publishing House.

Com Disc Publish

Documents

Transcript of Com Disc Publish