This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mixed language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please provide a published source backing up the claim that Galatian is a mixed language. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is this article, which is supposed to be about mixed languages, mostly not about mixed languages? I think the irrelevant stuff should be removed. Dougg 08:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
So, what about the western Ukraine where people are fluent in both Ukrainain and Russian and most speak a mixture of both languages - even in the same sentence? Often people will use the pronouns and pronounciation of one language while heavily borrowing words from the other language. While the grammar is very similar, I've heard that only about 30% of the vocabulary is shared. So, is this area using code-switching or is Ukrussian a mixed-language?
Calling Maltese a mixed language shows a profound misunderstanding of both Maltese and the concept of "mixed language". Maltese is a Semitic language, specifically it's a variety of Arabic. It has a lot of loanwords from Italian and English, but its core vocabulary and all of its grammar is Arabic. It's no more a mixed language than English is (and no, English isn't one either). — An gr 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I looked through the sources given. The two offline sources (which I don't have access to) are 50 years old and so hardly reflect up-to-date research. Many of the online sources don't actually claim that Maltese is a mixed language, so I removed them. One freely admits to inventing a new definition of "mixed language", which includes Urdu, Ottomon Turkish, and Yiddish, none of which are considered mixed languages by the conventional definition; I removed that too since this article follows the conventional definition. The remaining online sources that do make the claim are not written by linguists. So maybe 50 years ago some linguists considered Maltese a mixed language, but it seems that today, only non-linguists do. — An gr 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(On a sidenote, oh how I wish you would look at the Style manual - your formattings are simply annoying). And it is apparent you did not read the Maltese language article properly. It clearly states that both Semitic and Romance syntax patterns co-correlate. For instance, the idea of the trilateral consonant function of Arabic, by which the base root of a word stems from three selected consonants, with all derivatives created by rearranging them and interposting vowels, while coexisting with a Romance syntax pattern (which I am sure if you are the qualified linguist you say you are, will know is certainly different from that of the Arabic) certainly makes it Mixed. And no actually, I included this source because if you noticed, I wrote in the section about how Maltese was only classified as a Mixed language by some linguists, while others still considered it historically Semitic. Point out to me where I stated otherwise, by all means. And *cough* yes? Usually, the idea that a language is Semi-Romance, Semi-Semitic would tend to suggest a mix, but you know, I guess you must be so highly linguistically qualified with all that logic there ey? ;) And the other quotes are all reliable third party sources, and thus pass the test of reliability. 89.242.104.114 ( talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Our insecure Maltese socks are back. Protected the article. kwami ( talk) 08:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not a "sock", but Maltese certainly sprang to mind as an example. Were it not for the extremely heavy Italian and Greek influence on vocabulary and transcription, it would be more or less Arabic.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
English has been seriously modified by French as well.
Taking into account that for centuries French was the language used by the English Norman elite (Plantagenet) it is evident English is now a creole language with an importante percentage of Latin words: Liberty in Latin/Freeom in Germanic, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.210.54 ( talk) 06:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
-s is the most common plural in French by far. It isn't common at all in Old English. The reason we form nearly all plurals in -s now is absolutely nothing to do with Anglo-Saxon and everything to do with the Normans. Hence mixed language.
Dutch is not a good example, because it too has been heavily influenced by French.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
> However, the chief European influence on Hebrew is in pronunciation, as Hebrew grammar remains entirely Semitic.
Non-sense. The syntax of Modern Hebrew is "Standard Average European". See for example http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/0b248d627d7379fd Why do ignorant laypeople pontificate on technical linguistic matters in Wikipedia? Well, I for one don't trust Wikipedia one iota on linguistic matters. 91.152.249.195 ( talk) 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Different point. The main article on Hebrew Modern_Hebrew#Classification says these Mixed/Creole classifications are seen as anything but mainstream; I therefore propose we move Hebrew off the list. Akerbeltz ( talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Under "See also", a link to Chiac has been added. From the examples given in the French Wikipedia, this seems to be a register of French with a lot of English loanwords, loan meanings and loan constructions, as well as loaned phrases, but it's still clearly recognisable as derived from French, not even what I'd call regularised code-switching. The use of English lexical material, while unusually extensive, is hardly so extreme as to warrant doubt as to the genetic classification of the language. The verbal morphology is clearly French and there is plenty of French lexical material. I fail to see where what happens in Chiac constitutes a mixed language. I'll remove the link and change the classification of Chiac in its infobox to reflect its unambiguous French nature. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That said, Chiac looks very much like the type of language that arises in a bilingual environment, especially where a small immigrant (or autochthonous minority) community is surrounded by speakers of a major language, which is also the lingua franca or native language of the wider community (usually country), necessary for anything beyond the borders of the immigrant community. This is a sort of language island situation. Just have a look at Texas German. In such cases, the immigrant community is normally fully bilingual and even if children raised in the community have learned the immigrant language first, the national language is so widely used that it may be dominant in the speakers when they use it more frequently than their first language, and may not use their first language regularly. In such cases, the second language may strongly influence the first language on all levels, not only material (typical of superstrate interference) but also structure (typical of substrate influence). This is anything but an unusual phenomenon! And it's not even a modern phenomenon, either. It's just that minority languages were rarely recorded in ancient times, but we do have a few glimpses of ancient languages like this, such as Gaulish with strong Latin influence. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Time for a revisit after more than 2 years. I see some blunders corrected but others persist, and new ones added. This article isn't consistent with itself.
and so on
Is there even one example that is?
This passage seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the standard technical definition "mixed language".
Relexification. I'm really at odds here why relexification (of a massive scale) should be interpreted as "mixed language"?!?
Relexification.
Relexification.
The fusion of more than two languages is not attested.
Even the wiki article doesn't describe it as a mixed language. Laypeople on the discussion page pontificate on the issue.
OMG! We are accepting some people's invented language pet projects now!
The fusion of more than two languages is not attested. Besides, the "language" is really a) German with loanwords b) not a native language to anyone nowadays or c) "secret language" (a bit like pig latin) 85.131.18.14 ( talk) 00:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
GvargasLing150 ( talk) 05:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Several students enrolled in a Sociolinguistics class at University of California, Berkeley, will be making some major edits to this page for the coming weeks. We hope to expand on several sections and re-work the definition of a mixed language, including how they differ from pidgins, creoles, and code-switching. We would appreciate any constructive feedback!
I think this page could be improved by using language that is a bit more formal. Sentences like "Every language is mixed to some extent[1] but few languages are "mixed languages" in the specific sense meant here" and "The Metis of St. Laurent, a tribe of indigenous people in Canada, were made to feel their language was a sign of inferiority" seem a bit casual. Also, a lot of the sentences have many clauses that make the page feel disjointed and the ideas get lost. (Ex: Finally, a mixed language differs from code-switching, such as Spanglish or Portuñol, in that, once it has developed, the fusion of the source languages is fixed in the grammar and vocabulary, and speakers do not need to know the source languages in order to speak it.) The lone example under Sociolinguistic Aspects seems a bit strange (why does only that example demonstrate Socioling Aspects?). You need an explanation of how this example demonstrates certain sociolinguistic aspects, and even define what you mean by sociolinguistic aspects. That said, I like the examples under Cases and thought they were interesting! Yaylinguistics ( talk) 09:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Really interesting page! I would suggest changing the heading for the Definitions section, as it seems to be more of a compare and contrast section (which is valuable) rather than a list of definitions concerning mixed languages. The "Sociolinguistics Aspects" section seems a bit odd to me as well. Perhaps it is too descriptive and does not include enough analysis as to what exactly is sociolinguistic about the Michif case. It is also a bit awkward to have "Michif" again as a subsection in "Cases of Mixed Languages" right under where it originally appeared in "Sociolinguistic Aspects." Maybe find a way to converge them? Nice job overall! EmmaKylie ( talk) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the topic of the this page is really sociolinguistically meaningful. All languages deserve to be distinguished and appreciated for the sake of their own culture. The group has clearly differentiated mixed languages from other similar types of language mix. However, I would suggest changing the title for the 'definitions' section, since the section is mainly composed of various comparisons instead of formal definitions. Also, it would be nice to include some examples of how each mixed language differ from the parent languages in expressing the same idea. Examples could be more straightforward than stating grammatical rules in prose in demonstrating the differences. Other than that, I think this page is quite organized and easy to follow. Danleiseveny ( talk) 04:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Another great page! I thought the introduction was very straightforward and easy to follow. In the definition section, I think it would be nice to have a concrete definition, either at the beginning or at the end, that synthesizes everything you guys mention that "it is not like" to show what it is. I would hyperlink 'Michif' the first time you bring the word up in the sociolinguistic aspects section. Great cases of mixed languages section! MildlyImpressed ( talk) 05:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Great page! I like your definition of mixed languages, and the introduction paragraph is very helpful and clear-cut. I agree that the manner of writing could be more formal to make it more academic. Also, a minor suggestion: in the Definition section, maybe after the first paragraph, you could include one sentence saying what other similar concepts there are. This makes it easier on the reader when they go to the second paragraph where it starts off with differentiating mixed languages and pidgins--it is a little abrupt without an introduction of the potential confusions among those similar terms. Other than that (I'm not sure which parts you modified the most on this page), it's a great, well-structured page! Crfrances ( talk) 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent page! I agree with a few of the above commentors that the "Sociolinguistic aspects" section is redundant, at least in its present form. This section should discuss general patterns seen in mixed languages and how those languages arise from specific social dynamics. The examples are good, and I also appreciated that you provided a more exhaustive list of hyperlinks at the bottom of the page. Great work! Kdinatale ( talk) 07:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work! I actually like the portion under sociolinguistic aspects, but recommend you expand it beyond just michif. The examples are excellent, and yay for hyperlinking. I agree with the more formal writing critique, as sometimes it feels unclear as to what ya'll are referring to. But for a first draft, this is excellent work! Hamzajaka ( talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice page! I also agree that the Sociolinguistic Aspects section is a bit odd. Anyway, I think you could break up the Definitions section into subsections for clarity and ease of reading. Perhaps the subsections could be something like "Mixed language and intertwined language," "Mixed language vs. Pidgins/Creoles," and "Mixed language vs. Code-Switching." Also, in the fourth paragraph, the definition for a pidgin language wasn't very clear. Mentioning mixed languages and fluency twice (in that same paragraph) was a bit redundant. In the fifth paragraph, you should provide a short definition of code-switching. I thought you gave some nice examples. Good job! Elizalinguistics ( talk) 08:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion of specific mixed languages is the strong point of this page, but the higher-level descriptive and theoretical discussion, which is very, very important, still requires considerable attention.
In summary, the primary areas that require attention are the higher-level conceptual ones; the discussions of specific languages are quite good. Ldmanthroling ( talk) 17:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent job, this is a difficult topic to explain for a variety of reasons. I agree with Lev that you should fix the factual error about Mixed language speakers bilingualism. To my knowledge the fact that some speakers are monolingual is a really crucial piece of evidence for a mixed language. I don't really have a problem with the language you use that has been deemed "informal," but it is true that for a wikipedia article you perhaps want to be more concise. Your examples are very good, but I agree with Lev that more info on the higher level conceptual aspects seems necessary. Efgoodrich ( talk) 17:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I was really impressed by the Cases of Mixed Languages section. The descriptions are thorough, but easy to understand. I think with a few exceptions, you went into the right amount of detail in breaking down both the social and linguistic elements to each of the mixed languages you describe there (I mean, is it really necessary to explain the "token" system?). However, I think your introduction and Definitions sections could be worked on a bit. I know a lot of it is left over from the original page, but I think it would be helpful to edit them with some of the information from our discussion of mixed languages in lecture, which contradicted some of the information here, and to clean up the writing a bit. The intro especially is a bit wordy. But overall, it was a well done page. Frannieu12 ( talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The page really helped my understanding of mixed languages. However, the case studies could be somewhat more "animated" -- a chart of the "linguistic faults" where the two languages split would be very useful! Other than that, the definitions really did help make mixed languages stick. Warrenmcbieber ( talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As others have said, the strongest part of the page is the examples section. The links to individual pages on each of the mixed languages provide a great deal of case studies that can help shape the reader's perception of mixed languages. Here are some suggestions for improving the top sections. Introduction: Either remove the part about emerging ethnic groups or elaborate more on this topic in the non-examples sections of the page. Definitions: Reword the end of the second sentence of the second paragraph...it becomes difficult to read towards the end. Remove mention of Ardens...a citation should suffice. Differentiation with other language mixtures: rename section to Mixed languages vs. language mixtures, or something else to correct what I think is an improper prepositional idiom "differentiation with". You call Spanglish an example of codeswitching, but the Spanglish page calls it a pidgin. Finally, citations are needed for this section and the Definitions section. Jeffbutters ( talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Good job. The Cases of Mixed Languages section is super. Like some others have pointed out, providing more citations would be good, adequately describing the overarching concepts related to mixed languages is pretty pertinent, and cleaning up the wording in general is an inevitable 'must'. M.karie ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Nicely done. I think the organization of this page is really well thought out and contributes to a nice overall flow of the argument. I would recommend re-wording some of it; particularly in the "definitions" section, the prose gets a little bit wordy and long-winded. I think the writing could be made clearer by shortening some of the sentences. Also, you may think about changing the title of the "definitions" section, as it seems to highlight competing theories more than just the definitions. Perhaps just re-titling it "competing definitions" would suffice. Tinydancer.egreen ( talk) 18:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Great page! Nice reorganizing; it's also well cited. I agree with above commenters that the 'Definition" section is a little wordy and could maybe be restructured. Small nitpicks: for the "Light Walpiri" section, perhaps making a paragraph break for why it's considered a new language would be easier to read. Also, I don't know that the last section of Michif about the 'token-system' is a little unnecessary. If you want to keep it, then maybe expand on it or reword it so it fits into the rest of the section better? Overall, though, very informative. Catclawnym ( talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Languages are constantly being called "mixed" because of foreign influence, and some of that ends up here. We really need sources, at least in the main articles. So, we describe Bonin English as a creole, Yeniche as jargon (though in an exceptionally bad article), Surzhyk looks macaronic, and Jopara just looks like a case of heaving borrowing like in Chicano Spanish. (After all, Japanese conjugates some English verbs like 'double' following Japanese patterns, but no-one considers Japanese to be a mixed language.) I tagged these for refs, and plan on removing them soon if we don't find any. And I removed Surzhyk as the very first example in the article, considering we haven't even shown it to belong in the article. — kwami ( talk) 09:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Petuh dialect is an unref'd orphan that could use review. — kwami ( talk) 04:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
There is near verbatim duplication of the final two paragraphs of the Definitions section as the final two paragraphs of the following Differentiation section.
I don't know which section they better belong in. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't get this sentence at all: "Because missionaries and Bretons stigmatized Michif French..." Missionaries I understand, but how and by what authority did the inhabitants of Bretagne, far across the sea on a distant continent, persecute Manitoban peoples? Laodah ( talk) 06:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
While it is true that there continues to be some debate about whether "Mixed language" is a useful category, I think this article overstates the argument against it and gives undue weight to the anti-mixed languages viewpoint which I think is the minority view in linguistics, particularly in contact linguistics. I also think it generally gets the issue rather backwards because it focuses on the question of question of the existence of a category of mixed languages, instead of on the process of language mixing or entwinement that produces those languages. The lead gives undue weight to Max Müller, Whitney and Schmidt, whose views are almost entirely irrelevant for the modern debate. IN short I don't think the article is currently as neutral and informative as it ought to be, for which reason I have placed the "NPOV" tag at the top. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am teaching a WikiEdu course (ANTH474)which involves editing pages related to contact languages. The students and I will be editing this page together in class on Sept. 25th, 2018 in order to practice evaluating and editing other articles. If you have concerns or feedback on our edits, please reply here. Thanks. CESchreyer ( talk) 20:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Rapa language § Classification of Reo Rapa as a kind of mixed language. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 03:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Coming to this article by chance ... I was fascinated by the examples and by the debates regarding a definition.
I would probably want to carry out #2 above jw ( talk) 11:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mixed language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please provide a published source backing up the claim that Galatian is a mixed language. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is this article, which is supposed to be about mixed languages, mostly not about mixed languages? I think the irrelevant stuff should be removed. Dougg 08:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
So, what about the western Ukraine where people are fluent in both Ukrainain and Russian and most speak a mixture of both languages - even in the same sentence? Often people will use the pronouns and pronounciation of one language while heavily borrowing words from the other language. While the grammar is very similar, I've heard that only about 30% of the vocabulary is shared. So, is this area using code-switching or is Ukrussian a mixed-language?
Calling Maltese a mixed language shows a profound misunderstanding of both Maltese and the concept of "mixed language". Maltese is a Semitic language, specifically it's a variety of Arabic. It has a lot of loanwords from Italian and English, but its core vocabulary and all of its grammar is Arabic. It's no more a mixed language than English is (and no, English isn't one either). — An gr 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I looked through the sources given. The two offline sources (which I don't have access to) are 50 years old and so hardly reflect up-to-date research. Many of the online sources don't actually claim that Maltese is a mixed language, so I removed them. One freely admits to inventing a new definition of "mixed language", which includes Urdu, Ottomon Turkish, and Yiddish, none of which are considered mixed languages by the conventional definition; I removed that too since this article follows the conventional definition. The remaining online sources that do make the claim are not written by linguists. So maybe 50 years ago some linguists considered Maltese a mixed language, but it seems that today, only non-linguists do. — An gr 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(On a sidenote, oh how I wish you would look at the Style manual - your formattings are simply annoying). And it is apparent you did not read the Maltese language article properly. It clearly states that both Semitic and Romance syntax patterns co-correlate. For instance, the idea of the trilateral consonant function of Arabic, by which the base root of a word stems from three selected consonants, with all derivatives created by rearranging them and interposting vowels, while coexisting with a Romance syntax pattern (which I am sure if you are the qualified linguist you say you are, will know is certainly different from that of the Arabic) certainly makes it Mixed. And no actually, I included this source because if you noticed, I wrote in the section about how Maltese was only classified as a Mixed language by some linguists, while others still considered it historically Semitic. Point out to me where I stated otherwise, by all means. And *cough* yes? Usually, the idea that a language is Semi-Romance, Semi-Semitic would tend to suggest a mix, but you know, I guess you must be so highly linguistically qualified with all that logic there ey? ;) And the other quotes are all reliable third party sources, and thus pass the test of reliability. 89.242.104.114 ( talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Our insecure Maltese socks are back. Protected the article. kwami ( talk) 08:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not a "sock", but Maltese certainly sprang to mind as an example. Were it not for the extremely heavy Italian and Greek influence on vocabulary and transcription, it would be more or less Arabic.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
English has been seriously modified by French as well.
Taking into account that for centuries French was the language used by the English Norman elite (Plantagenet) it is evident English is now a creole language with an importante percentage of Latin words: Liberty in Latin/Freeom in Germanic, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.210.54 ( talk) 06:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
-s is the most common plural in French by far. It isn't common at all in Old English. The reason we form nearly all plurals in -s now is absolutely nothing to do with Anglo-Saxon and everything to do with the Normans. Hence mixed language.
Dutch is not a good example, because it too has been heavily influenced by French.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
> However, the chief European influence on Hebrew is in pronunciation, as Hebrew grammar remains entirely Semitic.
Non-sense. The syntax of Modern Hebrew is "Standard Average European". See for example http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/0b248d627d7379fd Why do ignorant laypeople pontificate on technical linguistic matters in Wikipedia? Well, I for one don't trust Wikipedia one iota on linguistic matters. 91.152.249.195 ( talk) 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Different point. The main article on Hebrew Modern_Hebrew#Classification says these Mixed/Creole classifications are seen as anything but mainstream; I therefore propose we move Hebrew off the list. Akerbeltz ( talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Under "See also", a link to Chiac has been added. From the examples given in the French Wikipedia, this seems to be a register of French with a lot of English loanwords, loan meanings and loan constructions, as well as loaned phrases, but it's still clearly recognisable as derived from French, not even what I'd call regularised code-switching. The use of English lexical material, while unusually extensive, is hardly so extreme as to warrant doubt as to the genetic classification of the language. The verbal morphology is clearly French and there is plenty of French lexical material. I fail to see where what happens in Chiac constitutes a mixed language. I'll remove the link and change the classification of Chiac in its infobox to reflect its unambiguous French nature. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That said, Chiac looks very much like the type of language that arises in a bilingual environment, especially where a small immigrant (or autochthonous minority) community is surrounded by speakers of a major language, which is also the lingua franca or native language of the wider community (usually country), necessary for anything beyond the borders of the immigrant community. This is a sort of language island situation. Just have a look at Texas German. In such cases, the immigrant community is normally fully bilingual and even if children raised in the community have learned the immigrant language first, the national language is so widely used that it may be dominant in the speakers when they use it more frequently than their first language, and may not use their first language regularly. In such cases, the second language may strongly influence the first language on all levels, not only material (typical of superstrate interference) but also structure (typical of substrate influence). This is anything but an unusual phenomenon! And it's not even a modern phenomenon, either. It's just that minority languages were rarely recorded in ancient times, but we do have a few glimpses of ancient languages like this, such as Gaulish with strong Latin influence. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Time for a revisit after more than 2 years. I see some blunders corrected but others persist, and new ones added. This article isn't consistent with itself.
and so on
Is there even one example that is?
This passage seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the standard technical definition "mixed language".
Relexification. I'm really at odds here why relexification (of a massive scale) should be interpreted as "mixed language"?!?
Relexification.
Relexification.
The fusion of more than two languages is not attested.
Even the wiki article doesn't describe it as a mixed language. Laypeople on the discussion page pontificate on the issue.
OMG! We are accepting some people's invented language pet projects now!
The fusion of more than two languages is not attested. Besides, the "language" is really a) German with loanwords b) not a native language to anyone nowadays or c) "secret language" (a bit like pig latin) 85.131.18.14 ( talk) 00:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
GvargasLing150 ( talk) 05:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Several students enrolled in a Sociolinguistics class at University of California, Berkeley, will be making some major edits to this page for the coming weeks. We hope to expand on several sections and re-work the definition of a mixed language, including how they differ from pidgins, creoles, and code-switching. We would appreciate any constructive feedback!
I think this page could be improved by using language that is a bit more formal. Sentences like "Every language is mixed to some extent[1] but few languages are "mixed languages" in the specific sense meant here" and "The Metis of St. Laurent, a tribe of indigenous people in Canada, were made to feel their language was a sign of inferiority" seem a bit casual. Also, a lot of the sentences have many clauses that make the page feel disjointed and the ideas get lost. (Ex: Finally, a mixed language differs from code-switching, such as Spanglish or Portuñol, in that, once it has developed, the fusion of the source languages is fixed in the grammar and vocabulary, and speakers do not need to know the source languages in order to speak it.) The lone example under Sociolinguistic Aspects seems a bit strange (why does only that example demonstrate Socioling Aspects?). You need an explanation of how this example demonstrates certain sociolinguistic aspects, and even define what you mean by sociolinguistic aspects. That said, I like the examples under Cases and thought they were interesting! Yaylinguistics ( talk) 09:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Really interesting page! I would suggest changing the heading for the Definitions section, as it seems to be more of a compare and contrast section (which is valuable) rather than a list of definitions concerning mixed languages. The "Sociolinguistics Aspects" section seems a bit odd to me as well. Perhaps it is too descriptive and does not include enough analysis as to what exactly is sociolinguistic about the Michif case. It is also a bit awkward to have "Michif" again as a subsection in "Cases of Mixed Languages" right under where it originally appeared in "Sociolinguistic Aspects." Maybe find a way to converge them? Nice job overall! EmmaKylie ( talk) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the topic of the this page is really sociolinguistically meaningful. All languages deserve to be distinguished and appreciated for the sake of their own culture. The group has clearly differentiated mixed languages from other similar types of language mix. However, I would suggest changing the title for the 'definitions' section, since the section is mainly composed of various comparisons instead of formal definitions. Also, it would be nice to include some examples of how each mixed language differ from the parent languages in expressing the same idea. Examples could be more straightforward than stating grammatical rules in prose in demonstrating the differences. Other than that, I think this page is quite organized and easy to follow. Danleiseveny ( talk) 04:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Another great page! I thought the introduction was very straightforward and easy to follow. In the definition section, I think it would be nice to have a concrete definition, either at the beginning or at the end, that synthesizes everything you guys mention that "it is not like" to show what it is. I would hyperlink 'Michif' the first time you bring the word up in the sociolinguistic aspects section. Great cases of mixed languages section! MildlyImpressed ( talk) 05:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Great page! I like your definition of mixed languages, and the introduction paragraph is very helpful and clear-cut. I agree that the manner of writing could be more formal to make it more academic. Also, a minor suggestion: in the Definition section, maybe after the first paragraph, you could include one sentence saying what other similar concepts there are. This makes it easier on the reader when they go to the second paragraph where it starts off with differentiating mixed languages and pidgins--it is a little abrupt without an introduction of the potential confusions among those similar terms. Other than that (I'm not sure which parts you modified the most on this page), it's a great, well-structured page! Crfrances ( talk) 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent page! I agree with a few of the above commentors that the "Sociolinguistic aspects" section is redundant, at least in its present form. This section should discuss general patterns seen in mixed languages and how those languages arise from specific social dynamics. The examples are good, and I also appreciated that you provided a more exhaustive list of hyperlinks at the bottom of the page. Great work! Kdinatale ( talk) 07:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work! I actually like the portion under sociolinguistic aspects, but recommend you expand it beyond just michif. The examples are excellent, and yay for hyperlinking. I agree with the more formal writing critique, as sometimes it feels unclear as to what ya'll are referring to. But for a first draft, this is excellent work! Hamzajaka ( talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice page! I also agree that the Sociolinguistic Aspects section is a bit odd. Anyway, I think you could break up the Definitions section into subsections for clarity and ease of reading. Perhaps the subsections could be something like "Mixed language and intertwined language," "Mixed language vs. Pidgins/Creoles," and "Mixed language vs. Code-Switching." Also, in the fourth paragraph, the definition for a pidgin language wasn't very clear. Mentioning mixed languages and fluency twice (in that same paragraph) was a bit redundant. In the fifth paragraph, you should provide a short definition of code-switching. I thought you gave some nice examples. Good job! Elizalinguistics ( talk) 08:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion of specific mixed languages is the strong point of this page, but the higher-level descriptive and theoretical discussion, which is very, very important, still requires considerable attention.
In summary, the primary areas that require attention are the higher-level conceptual ones; the discussions of specific languages are quite good. Ldmanthroling ( talk) 17:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent job, this is a difficult topic to explain for a variety of reasons. I agree with Lev that you should fix the factual error about Mixed language speakers bilingualism. To my knowledge the fact that some speakers are monolingual is a really crucial piece of evidence for a mixed language. I don't really have a problem with the language you use that has been deemed "informal," but it is true that for a wikipedia article you perhaps want to be more concise. Your examples are very good, but I agree with Lev that more info on the higher level conceptual aspects seems necessary. Efgoodrich ( talk) 17:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I was really impressed by the Cases of Mixed Languages section. The descriptions are thorough, but easy to understand. I think with a few exceptions, you went into the right amount of detail in breaking down both the social and linguistic elements to each of the mixed languages you describe there (I mean, is it really necessary to explain the "token" system?). However, I think your introduction and Definitions sections could be worked on a bit. I know a lot of it is left over from the original page, but I think it would be helpful to edit them with some of the information from our discussion of mixed languages in lecture, which contradicted some of the information here, and to clean up the writing a bit. The intro especially is a bit wordy. But overall, it was a well done page. Frannieu12 ( talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The page really helped my understanding of mixed languages. However, the case studies could be somewhat more "animated" -- a chart of the "linguistic faults" where the two languages split would be very useful! Other than that, the definitions really did help make mixed languages stick. Warrenmcbieber ( talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As others have said, the strongest part of the page is the examples section. The links to individual pages on each of the mixed languages provide a great deal of case studies that can help shape the reader's perception of mixed languages. Here are some suggestions for improving the top sections. Introduction: Either remove the part about emerging ethnic groups or elaborate more on this topic in the non-examples sections of the page. Definitions: Reword the end of the second sentence of the second paragraph...it becomes difficult to read towards the end. Remove mention of Ardens...a citation should suffice. Differentiation with other language mixtures: rename section to Mixed languages vs. language mixtures, or something else to correct what I think is an improper prepositional idiom "differentiation with". You call Spanglish an example of codeswitching, but the Spanglish page calls it a pidgin. Finally, citations are needed for this section and the Definitions section. Jeffbutters ( talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Good job. The Cases of Mixed Languages section is super. Like some others have pointed out, providing more citations would be good, adequately describing the overarching concepts related to mixed languages is pretty pertinent, and cleaning up the wording in general is an inevitable 'must'. M.karie ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Nicely done. I think the organization of this page is really well thought out and contributes to a nice overall flow of the argument. I would recommend re-wording some of it; particularly in the "definitions" section, the prose gets a little bit wordy and long-winded. I think the writing could be made clearer by shortening some of the sentences. Also, you may think about changing the title of the "definitions" section, as it seems to highlight competing theories more than just the definitions. Perhaps just re-titling it "competing definitions" would suffice. Tinydancer.egreen ( talk) 18:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Great page! Nice reorganizing; it's also well cited. I agree with above commenters that the 'Definition" section is a little wordy and could maybe be restructured. Small nitpicks: for the "Light Walpiri" section, perhaps making a paragraph break for why it's considered a new language would be easier to read. Also, I don't know that the last section of Michif about the 'token-system' is a little unnecessary. If you want to keep it, then maybe expand on it or reword it so it fits into the rest of the section better? Overall, though, very informative. Catclawnym ( talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Languages are constantly being called "mixed" because of foreign influence, and some of that ends up here. We really need sources, at least in the main articles. So, we describe Bonin English as a creole, Yeniche as jargon (though in an exceptionally bad article), Surzhyk looks macaronic, and Jopara just looks like a case of heaving borrowing like in Chicano Spanish. (After all, Japanese conjugates some English verbs like 'double' following Japanese patterns, but no-one considers Japanese to be a mixed language.) I tagged these for refs, and plan on removing them soon if we don't find any. And I removed Surzhyk as the very first example in the article, considering we haven't even shown it to belong in the article. — kwami ( talk) 09:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Petuh dialect is an unref'd orphan that could use review. — kwami ( talk) 04:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
There is near verbatim duplication of the final two paragraphs of the Definitions section as the final two paragraphs of the following Differentiation section.
I don't know which section they better belong in. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't get this sentence at all: "Because missionaries and Bretons stigmatized Michif French..." Missionaries I understand, but how and by what authority did the inhabitants of Bretagne, far across the sea on a distant continent, persecute Manitoban peoples? Laodah ( talk) 06:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
While it is true that there continues to be some debate about whether "Mixed language" is a useful category, I think this article overstates the argument against it and gives undue weight to the anti-mixed languages viewpoint which I think is the minority view in linguistics, particularly in contact linguistics. I also think it generally gets the issue rather backwards because it focuses on the question of question of the existence of a category of mixed languages, instead of on the process of language mixing or entwinement that produces those languages. The lead gives undue weight to Max Müller, Whitney and Schmidt, whose views are almost entirely irrelevant for the modern debate. IN short I don't think the article is currently as neutral and informative as it ought to be, for which reason I have placed the "NPOV" tag at the top. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am teaching a WikiEdu course (ANTH474)which involves editing pages related to contact languages. The students and I will be editing this page together in class on Sept. 25th, 2018 in order to practice evaluating and editing other articles. If you have concerns or feedback on our edits, please reply here. Thanks. CESchreyer ( talk) 20:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Rapa language § Classification of Reo Rapa as a kind of mixed language. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 03:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Coming to this article by chance ... I was fascinated by the examples and by the debates regarding a definition.
I would probably want to carry out #2 above jw ( talk) 11:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)