Page 47 [47]
OCR
OPTIMALITY THEORY IN ANALYZING BILINGUAL USE instances of code-switches, resulting from the reduced linguistic competence of speakers (due to language loss, attrition, unstable bilingualism) as well as instances of code-switches filling up linguistic gaps, or borrowings are excluded from the scope of this framework. (m) OT for bilingual grammar does not set the direction of code-switching as inherently more meaningful than the other one in relation of the codes. It premises that the switch per se can be meaningful irrespective of the direction of switching. Therefore, code-switching of any direction from/to the switched codes is included in the scope of examination. (n) A comprehensive list of all the socio-pragmatic meaning-making functions (over 130) of code-switching in the relevant literature (120 studies) have been classified under five principles (see the comprehensive list in Appendix 1), which act as universal but soft constraints. They are as follows: the Principle of Interpretive Faithfulness (FAITH), the Principle of Symbolic Domination (POWER), the Principle of Social Concurrence (SOLIDARITY), the Principle of Face Management (FACE), and the Principle of Perspective Taking (PERSPECTIVE). The principles of Optimality Theory in analyzing bilingual use In the following subsection, the five principles acting as sociopragmatic constraints are discussed in more detail. First, the principle of Faithful Interpretiveness (FAITH) is elaborated on. 1 The principle of faithful interpretiveness [FAITH] Bhatt and Bolonyai claim that such instances of code-switching can be subsumed in the principle of faithful interpretiveness which “maximize informativity with respect to specificity of meaning and economy of expression. Actors code-switch to the language that more faithfully and economically captures the intended conceptual, semantic-pragmatic, often socio-culturally or ideologically grounded, meaning”!. In other words, the main socio-pragmatic function of code-switches classified under the principle of faithful interpretiveness is to express the most economically and faithfully the intended meaning of the speaker when the semantic-conceptual attribute of the monolingual candidate does not allow its most optimal meaning-making formation. All Faith-related instances enable the speaker to index or construct the most optimal interpretive conceptual, ideological, socio-cultural meaning of an utterance in a community-specific, 108 Bhatt — Bolonyai, Ibid., 526
