L1 English speake s in P ague:
Mo i a o s in language use
and language bo owing
Chloe Michelle Cas le (Uni e si y o Adelaide)
ABSTRACT
This pape iden i ies causes o g amma ical bo owing and ela ed g amma ical phenomena in L1
English L2 Czech immig an speech. This s udy con ibu es o he li e a u e on causes o g amma i-
cal bo owing and conside s key ideas including social p essu e (Thomason and Kau man 1988),
cogni i e p essu e (Ma as 1998; Sanchez 2005) and gap illing (Campbell 1993). Thi een semi-
s uc u ed in e iews we e conduc ed. Pa icipan s we e a ec ed by social p essu e and cogni i e
p essu e su ounding hei language use, whe he i ac ed as ad i ing o inhibi ing ac o in e ms
o g amma ical bo owing. Pa icipan s also engage in bo owing akin o “language play” (Po e
2003: 116) wi h hose close o hem; i is aconscious choice o bo ow in hese cases and i usually
ep esen s ma e (MAT) (Ma as and Sakel 2007) bo owing (Cas le 2021a). This pape p oposes
anew model which conside s bo h conscious and subconscious bo owing whils also conside ing
ac o s inhibi ing he possibili y o bo owing.
KEYWORDS
conscious bo owing, g amma ical bo owing, g amma ical gap illing, immig a ion and language
a i ion, language con ac
DOI
h ps://doi.o g/10.14712/18059635.2021.2.3
1 INTRODUCTION
This pape iden i ies d i e s o g amma ical bo owing and ela ed bo owing phe-
nomena in L1 English L21 Czech immig an s, es ablished in Cas le (2021a).2 Possibili-
ies include cogni i e p essu e o assimila ion (inc easing s uc u al simila i y and
simplici y, e.g. pa adigma ic egula isa ion) (Wein eich 1953; Co eanu 1957; Hea h
1978; Mahe 1985; Ma as 1998; Sanchez 2005), gap illing (Hale 1971; Vachek 1972;
1 In his a icle, L2 is used in he sense o “ u he language”, as i is acknowledged ha pa -
icipan s may ha e o he languages as well, which hey may possibly be mo e p o icien
in and/o ha e lea ned p io o lea ning Czech.
2 The pa icipan s a e e e ed o as immig an s bu can also be conside ed i s -gene a ion
Czechs. Iha e a oided he e m expa ia e because: he majo i y o he pa icipan s a e
long- e m esiden s in he Czech Republic; i can ep esen nega i e conno a ions ega d-
ing e usal o pa icipa e in he hos cul u e (see §2.1; She man 2009: 83–84); and ala ge
majo i y o he pa icipan s hemsel es ei he did no men ion he wo d expa ia e o ac-
i ely dis anced hemsel es om i , e.g. Pa icipan 3 “Idon’ hang ou in expa ia e socie y”.
162 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
Ka unen 1976; Mi hun 1980; Hill and Hill 1981; Campbell 1987; 1993; de la Fuen e
2017) and sociocul u al mo i a ions (B ody 1987; Thomason and Kau man 1988;
Campbell 1993; Mye s-Sco on 2002).
I conside s subconscious and conscious bo owing e en s (§3.2). The esul s and
discussion a e spli in o he ollowing:
— Social p essu es: D i ing and Inhibi ing In luences
• P essu e o speak Czech e.g. by he public, e c.
• Pa ne in luence
• P esc ip i ism-mo i a ed p essu e o a oid mixing
• Sel -p essu e and pe spec i e on mixing
• Loca ion- ela ed p essu es
— Cogni i e P essu es
• P e e ence ela ed o com o in language
• Bo owing due o o ge ing awo d and cogni i e ease o exp ession
— Gap Filling and C ea i i y
• Bo owing due o use ulness and be e (sociocul u al) exp ession o
meaning
• Pe spec i e on language play
— Subconscious Bo owing
Pa icipan opinions a e compa ed wi h hei bo owing endencies es ablished in
Cas le (2021a). The da a is analysed wi hin Thomason and Kau man’s (1998) ame-
wo k, inco po a ing Language Managemen Theo y (Neus upný and Nek apil 2003;
She man 2009; Nek apil and She man 2013; Nek apil 2016). Anew model is p o-
posed which conside s conscious and subconscious bo owing, as well as inhibi -
ing ac o s.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 CONTACT-INDUCED TRANSFER IN L1 ENGLISH SPEAKERS
In he li e a u e on L1 English speake s in Eu opean language se ings, he e a e
many L1 English expa ia es who ha e no lea ned he local language (She man 2001;
Neus upný and Nek apil 2003; She man 2009; Leinonen 2012; Lawson 2016). In Lei-
nonen’s (2012) s udy on Ame ican expa ia es in Finland, he majo i y o pa icipan s
we e no luen in Finnish hough hey had spen many yea s in Finland. Finnish, like
Czech, is asmall language on he wo ld s age, and when a“speake o aglobally e y
powe ul language” esides in he coun y hey may assume i is no expec ed o nec-
essa y o be able o speak i (La omaa 1998: 56).
L1 English mig an s ep esen aclass o “eli e mig an s” (Dong 2016): hey a e
o en mul ina ionals wi h signi ican social p es ige and powe (She man 2009;
Nek apil and She man 2013). This p es ige s ems om he s a us o English as glob-
ally powe ul language, and hus Czechs’ willingness o lea n i , and he pe cei ed ca-
ee oppo uni ies and ad an ages ha knowledge o he language b ings (Nek apil
CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 163
and She man 2013; Sučko á 2020a). Thus, many “Czech ci y dwelle s ypically ha e
some knowledge o i [… and] he p essu e […] o Anglophone expa ia es o lin-
guis ically […] assimila e is no as p onounced as wi h o he g oups” (Sučko á 2020a:
84). Many such Czechs may adhe e o he ideology o he absolu e ins umen ali y o
apa icula language discussed in Nek apil and She man (2013: 112). Nek apil and
She man (2013: 93) ound ha whi e colla employees om ab oad in apa icula
la ge mul ina ional company wi h plan s in he Czech Republic “ end no o acqui e
acommunica i e le el o Czech a e li ing in he Czech Republic o anumbe o
yea s”. This linguis ic non-in eg a ion would no be accep able o an immig an
om apoo e coun y (Leinonen 2012).
In Lawson’s (2016: 72) s udy on L1 English speaking immig an s in F ance, many
ended hei F ench lessons as “ eal li e ge s in he way”. Communica ion wi h locals
is o a ela i ely lowe impo ance in li e. Amongs Czech-Ame ican couples in he
Czech Republic, English is equen ly used and sociocul u ally Ame ican pa e ns
domina e (She man 2001; Neus upný and Nek apil 2003). Ame icans can be unwill-
ing o gi e up hei expa ia e s a us h ough language, and Czechs may no easily
admi o eigne s in o hei ne wo ks (Neus upný and Nek apil 2003).
The ep esen a i e a he Aus alia/New Zealand expa ia e communi y in P ague,
CANZA, in o med he esea che ha L1 English L2 Czech speake s wi hou Czech
he i age a e as “ a e as hen’s ee h”. L1 English expa ia es in his communi y a e in-
cluded in his g oup o immig an s who do no lea n he local language o any deg ee
o luency. I is in e es ing o ponde whe he social ne wo ks o such expa ia es
ex end a beyond o he L1 English speake s.3 Indeed, Sučko á (2020a: 84) s a es ha
L1 use a e “can emain a 100% in he ‘expa bubble’ in he capi al”. She man (2009:
85) discusses a“ icious ci cle” in e ms o he explana ions ha can be o e ed he e:
ei he English speake s a e “linguis ically incapable” and hus emain in hei expa-
ia e bubble; o he ac ha hey do no en u e ou o his bubble and hus do no
p ac ice speaking Czech ende s hem “linguis ically incompe en ”.
Du ing he da a collec ion p ocess he esea che became awa e ha hough he
expa ia e club did no know many ele an possible pa icipan s, hey do exis . The
popula ion o L1 English L2 Czech speake s may be small, bu la ge han an icipa ed
acco ding o he li e a u e and CANZA. These indi iduals seem o embed hemsel es
wi hin he Czech communi y. They o en s ill ha e some L1 English speaking iends,
pa icula ly in hei wo kplaces, bu hei cons an con ac wi h Czech and Czech
speake s p o ides aho bed in which socially mo i a ed con ac -induced g amma ical
3 English L1 expa ia es who equen ly a end expa ia e clubs (e.g. CANZA) would like-
ly no sha e acommon o m o English in luenced by Czech bilingualism (as hey a e no
bilingual in Czech). English L1 Czech L2 immig an s, who do no end o a end expa ia e
clubs, would also no sha e acommon o m o English in luenced by Czech bilingualism
as acommuni y— because hey do no o m acommuni y. This has consequences a ec -
ing in e p e a ions o he ou comes o bo owing i simila bo owing occu ences hap-
pen in pa icipan s who a e no pa o awide communi y— simila occu ences may be
happening o easons no in ol ing communi y sp ead and p opaga ion bu a he sim-
ila indi idual cogni i e p ocesses.
164 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
bo owing can ake place. Fo hose who emain p ima ily in he expa ia e bubble,
his is no possible.
Accommoda ion (Giles e al. 1973; Giles and Coupland 1991; Giles 2009; Gasio ek
and Vincze 2016) beha iou English owa d L1 Czech L2 English speake s, howe e ,
is s ill possible in such cases (Sučko á 2020b). Such accommoda ion occu s in an
a emp by indi iduals o bo h be accep ed by hei in e locu o and o enhance com-
munica ion. This can in ol e engaging in “ o eigne alk” (Fe guson 1975) o aid he
in e locu o in unde s anding (Giles e al. 1973; Giles and Coupland 1991; Giles 2009).
L1 English speake s may hen become habi ualised o speaking in his way (Sancie
and Fowle 1997; Sučko á 2020b).
2.2 REASONS FOR ENGAGING IN GRAMMATICAL BORROWING
Se e al possibili ies a e posi ed and ejec ed in he li e a u e o he cause(s) o
g amma ical bo owing in language con ac si ua ions. Filling ag amma ical gap is
ci ed as apo en ial d i e o g amma ical bo owing (Hale 1971; Hea h 1978; Hill and
Hill 1981; Campbell 1993; De La Fuen e 2017). Campbell (1993: 97) discusses se e al ex-
amples o such aphenomenon, including he bo owing o coo dina e conjunc ions
om Spanish in o Pipil, alanguage spoken in El Sal ado . P io o his bo owing,
Pipil had only “ e y limi ed and pe cep ually none- oo-salien esou ces o coo di-
na ion and subo dina ion” so i is hypo hesised o ill he “‘g amma ical gaps’ ecog-
nized in con ac wi h Spanish” (Campbell 1993: 97).
This idea is somewha con en ious in he li e a u e, howe e . B ody (1987) sug-
ges s ha no elemen is bo owed o ill agap because e e y ull language is comple e
in i sel : he e a e simply di e en ways o exp essing di e en concep s. Sanchez
(2005) ag ees in posi ing ha g amma ical gaps do no igge bo owing. Howe e ,
such ideas become clouded by di e ing de ini ions o wha g amma ical gaps ac ually
a e. Campbell (1993: 96) explains i as “ he claim ha some languages bo ow p ecisely
because hey lack o he wise use ul cons uc ions which hey encoun e in o he lan-
guages wi h which hey come in o con ac ”. Sanchez (2005: 236) does posi ha “g am-
ma icalisa ion ia a o eign mo pheme” may occu , whe ein a o eign mo pheme can
be bo owed om asou ce language which encodes some hing mo phologically which
he ecipien language codes pe iph as ically. Ma as and Sakel (2007: 858) posi ha
speake s a e no ying o ill agap in one o hei linguis ic sys ems, bu a he hey
a e “a emp ing o a ail hemsel es o cons uc ions ha a e pa o hei o al ep-
e oi e i espec i e o he se ing … and… iden i y o he chosen language o in e ac-
ion”. To his esea che , hese i wi hin he de ini ion o illing ag amma ical gap.
Sanchez (2005) also posi s mo phological enewal ( he eplacemen o ana i e
mo pheme wi h a o eign one p o ided ha bo h a e o he same ype, i.e. abound
o m eplacing abound o m, and ha hey ha e he same o e lapping unc ion),
s uc u al compa ibili y and con e gence (su ace o ms o con ac languages be-
come mo e alike) as con ibu ing causes o bo owing. P essu es o s uc u al com-
pa ibili y and con e gence may be in e p e ed as cogni i e p essu es on he bilingual
b ain. Ma as (1998: 281) sugges s ha g amma ical bo owing is he esul o cogni-
i e p essu e expe ienced by bilinguals o “d aw on [ he] p agma ically dominan
language o si ua i e… discou se- egula ing pu poses”.
CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 165
In Thomason and Kau man’s (1988) model, i is posi ed ha social ac o s a e
con ibu ing causes o g amma ical bo owing. They p o ide ascale o bo owing,
whe ein lesse con ac and social p essu e esul in mainly lexical bo owing, and
e y s ong con ac and p essu e can esul in bo owing o essen ially any ca ego y
(Thomason and Kau man 1988). Many o he s udies ag ee ha social ac o s can con-
ibu e o g amma ical bo owing in con ac si ua ions (B ody 1987; Campbell 1993;
Mye s-Sco on 2002; Sakel 2007; Lipski 2017; De La Fuen e 2017; Dob ushina 2017;
Ga dne -Chlo os and Seco a 2018). Sanchez (2005), howe e , pos ula es ha he e is
no s ong e idence o social ac o s in mo i a ing he bo owing p ocess aside om
he e y exis ence o he con ac si ua ion.
3 METHOD
3.1 DESIGN AND PROCEDURE
Thi een one-on-one in e iews we e conduc ed. In e iews we e semi-s uc u ed
o allow o new o unexpec ed con en - ich in o ma ion o be sha ed and u he
in es iga ed (Loewen and Plonsky 2015). In e iews las ed om be ween 13 and 38
minu es and we e unde aken a he Na ional Technical Lib a y in P ague, o a pa -
icipan homes, in Decembe 2019. The in e iews we e audio eco ded, ansc ibed
and coded by heme in NVi o.
The ques ions iden i ied whe he pa icipan s epo hemsel es as engaging in
g amma ical bo owing and hei pe cei ed causes o he phenomenon. They p o-
ided an in-dep h unde s anding abou language choices and con ibu ing ac o s.
Ques ions can be accessed on Figsha e (Cas le 2021c).
The sample was non- andom, and asnowball sampling me hod was used. The e-
sea che aimed o ob ain asample wi h a ange o ages, gende s, educa ional le els,
egions o o igin and leng h o habi a ion o maximise chances o ob aining a a ie y
o esul s amongs a ela i ely small g oup o pa icipan s. Abasic in o ma ion shee
was used o acqui e he pa icipan me ada a.
Pa icipan s we e equi ed o be L1 English L2 Czech speake s. Thei le el o lan-
guage abili y was iden i ied wi h asel - es and an online placemen es (Gollub
2020). Pa icipan s g aded hemsel es be ween 0 and 10, wi h 0 ep esen ing no lan-
guage knowledge and 10 ep esen ing luency. In he online es , pa icipan s we e
placed on he Common Eu opean F amewo k o Re e ence o Languages (CEFR). To
be conside ed luen Czech speake s a an adequa e le el o his s udy, pa icipan s
needed o ha e aB2 le el on he placemen es .4 Pa icipan s unde his le el a e in-
cluded in his pape , bu hei lack o luency is conside ed and signalled h oughou
he analysis.
4 Aspeake a B2 le el is conside ed an independen use who can “in e ac wi h adeg ee o
luency and spon anei y ha makes egula in e ac ion wi h na i e speake s qui e possi-
ble wi hou s ain o ei he pa y”, “p oduce aclea , de ailed ex on awide ange o sub-
jec s” and “unde s and he main ideas o acomplex ex on … conc e e and abs ac op-
ics” (Council o Eu ope 2020).

166 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
The e was an ini ial equi emen o pa icipan s o ha e no Czech pa en age and
o be Aus alian, bu his equi emen was disca ded due o bo h pa icipan a ail-
abili y and he esea che ha ing only alimi ed pe iod o ime in he coun y. The e
we e 626 Aus alians esiding in he Czech Republic in 2019 (Czech S a is ical O ice
2020), bu a o al o 18, 353 o eigne s om majo i y English-speaking coun ies5.
The majo i y o hese we e om he UK (8, 332 people) and he US (7,245 people).
Howe e , his may no e lec he p opo ion o na i e English speake s. As o 2012,
app oxima ely 0.68% o people in he Czech Republic had English as hei L1, whe eas
he English-speaking “ o eigne s” make up app oxima ely jus 0.17% o he popula-
ion ( an Pa ys 2012; Czech S a is ical O ice 2020). This gap may e lec hose wi h
Czech ci izenship who ha e English as hei L1, o could ep esen achange based
on he yea s in which he da a we e collec ed. The Czech pa en age pa icipan s a e
Pa icipan s 11, 12 and 13. This is conside ed in he analysis.
3.2 TERMINOLOGY
G amma ical bo owing includes bo h ma e bo owing (MAT) (whe ein he pho-
nological o m and unc ion a e bo owed) and pa e n bo owing (PAT) (whe ein
he unc ion bu no he phonological o m is bo owed) (Ma as and Sakel 2007).
Examples o MAT and PAT occu ing in he da a a e shown in examples (1) and (2)
espec i ely.
(1) Pa icipan 3: MAT ( unc ional su ix bo owing)
mous-o iš ě
mouse-PLACE.SUFFIX
‘aplace whe e mice ha e been making amess’
(2) Pa icipan 7: PAT (a icle omission)
Abou … husband and wi e couple
Abou husband and wi e couple
‘abou a husband and wi e couple’
Czech:
o manžel-o i a manžel-ce
Abou husband-LOC and wi e-LOC
‘abou ahusband and wi e (couple)’
This pape ollows Ma as and Sakel (2007) in conside ing g amma ical “uncon en-
ionali ies” (Doğ uöz & Backus 2009) a he indi idual le el as g amma ical bo ow-
ing, wi h inno a ion (in e ms o new use o language bo owed in some way om
5 These a e he coun ies ecognised by he UK go e nmen as being majo i y English
speaking: An igua and Ba buda, Aus alia, The Bahamas, Ba bados, Belize, Canada, Dom-
inica, G enada, Guyana, Jamaica, New Zealand, S Ki s and Ne is, S Lucia, T inidad and
Tobago, S Vincen and he G enadines, The Uni ed S a es o Ame ica (and, o cou se, he
UK i sel ) (Go .UK 2021).
CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 167
ano he language, no i s mo e gene al de ini ion) a he han communi y p opaga-
ion being he ocus.
The e m mixing was used when enqui ing abou language use; analogous o
Muysken’s (2000: 1) “code mixing”, e e ing o “all cases whe e lexical i ems and
g amma ical ea u es om wo languages appea in one sen ence”. This inc eased
he use - iendliness o he linguis ic e minology. Howe e , as he s udy aims o
ocus on g amma ical bo owing, speci ic ques ions we e asked and explained e-
ga ding bo owing, mo phology, and syn ax. I is ecognised ha his s udy may
e lec po en ial easons behind no only g amma ical bo owing, bu also lexical
bo owing and o he o ms o mixing. This is due o di icul y o pa icipan s in
iden i ying ins ances o bo owing and di e en ia ing be ween hem e.g. syn ac-
ic s lexical. Some pa icipan s did ha e highe me alinguis ic awa eness han
o he s and he e o e deepe , mo e de ailed, and ele an answe s we e ob ained
om hem.
Me alinguis ic awa eness plays a ole in how much pa icipan s can sha e ega d-
ing g amma ical bo owing, o any language-con ac ela ed phenomena in hei
speech. Bo owing e en s pa icipan s discuss include:
1. Conscious e en s ha people a e awa e o and pu pose ully engage in in eal ime.
2. E en s which people become awa e o immedia ely a e use.
3. E en s which people a e awa e o upon e lec ion.
4. E en s which people ha e a ague eeling ha hey may possibly engage in.
5. E en s ha people a e en i ely unawa e o .
In his s udy, he esea che will no be able o ob ain in o ma ion abou 5. Howe e ,
pa icipan s discuss 1–4 a leng h h oughou he in e iews. E en s ha a e subcon-
scious in eal ime a e discussed in Sec ion 4.4. Pa icipan awa eness o bo owing
e en s a e he ac shows ha hei pe o mance di e s om hei compe ency.
This is no o say ha bo owing ep esen s poo pe o mance, bu a he o say ha
pa icipan s end o be awa e o some linguis ic ules, equi emen s and ideologies
a ound S anda d English, hough hey may no always adhe e o hem.
In he analysis, apanel o six educa ed L1 English speaking people we e selec ed
o ind non-English sounding g amma ical phenomena in he da a. Me ada a on his
panel is displayed in Appendix 1.
3.3 PARTICIPANT DATA
The sample size o 13 was based on a ailabili y o pa icipan s du ing he ime he e-
sea che was able o spend in he Czech Republic. This is adequa e o an explo a o y
in-dep h s udy in o easons behind con ac -induced g amma ical bo owing. The
ich da a collec ed om his sample may be added o exis ing da a in he li e a u e
and used o be e unde s and his phenomenon o b oade c oss-linguis ic s udies.
Aims o ob ain a a ied sample we e ela i ely success ul (see §3.1). Pa icipan da a
is displayed in Table 1, and language p o iciency da a is displayed in Table 2 o ease
o compa ison and analysis be ween pa icipan s.
168 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
Va iable Ca ego y Numbe o pa icipan s Pa icipan s
Age >50 5 6 7 8 10 12
<50 8 1 2 3 4 5 9 11 13
Gende Male 7 1 7 8 9 10 11 12
Female 6 2 3 4 5 6 13
Leng h o
habi a ion
in he Czech
Republic
<1 yea 29 13
1–10 yea s 0
10–20 yea s 31 2 11
20 yea s + 83 4 5 6 7 8 10 12
Educa ion
High School 1 12
Bachelo ’s Deg ee 62 4 6 8 9 11
Mas e ’s Deg ee 21 13
PhD 4 3 5 7 10
Region
o O igin
New Sou h Wales, Aus alia 1 1
Vic o ia, Aus alia 39 12 13
USA 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 10
England 2 8 11
Table 1.Pa icipan da a
Pa icipan P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13
Czech
Sel -sco e 8 7 9 8 9 6 8 4 2 8 6 10 7
Czech CEFR
sco e C2 B2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 A2 B1 C2 C2 C2 C1
English
Sel -sco e 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Table 2.Pa icipan language p o iciency
The sel -sco es o Pa icipan s 6, 9 and 11 di e signi ican ly om hei CEFR sco e,
which is pa ially a ibu ed o he ac ha hese pa icipan s had asel -e acing na-
u e ega ding hei Czech abili ies. Pa icipan 8 s a es ha his Czech is “A2 o B1 o
all o ms, lis ening p obably ali le bi be e , he speaking comes ali le bi la e , bu
I y wi h he amily and hings like ha ”. Pa icipan 6 s a ed ha she was no speak-
ing Czech nea ly as much as she used o, and she is no happy abou he cu en le el
o Czech. The e also exis s alimi a ion in e ms o he CEFR online placemen es
(Gollub 2020) being pu ely based on lexical knowledge.
CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 169
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 SOCIAL PRESSURES
4.1.1 PRESSURE TO CONFORM TO SPEAKING CZECH
Pa icipan s we e asked whe he hey el social p essu e o speak Czech. Two ac-
o s come in o play including whe he he indi idual is he ype o be in luenced by
social p essu e, and whe he hey hen do eel such p essu e. In conside ing whe he
he indi idual is he ype o be in luenced by social p essu e, he esea che consid-
e ed la e commen a y by hose who ini ially s a ed ha hey a e no a ec ed by such
hings.6 People a e no always pe cei ed as being con iden and sel -assu ed i hey
e eal ha hey ca e abou wha o he s hink, e en i hey do, hence he esea che
conduc ed adeepe con en analysis o ind amo e accu a e answe .
Social p essu e o speak Czech can ac as bo h ad i ing and inhibi ing in luence
o con ac -induced uncon en ionali ies. Consis en ly speaking Czech a he han
English may aid in Czech luency and lowe English luency o e ime. This could
po en ially lead o mo e a i ion-based uncon en ionali ies in he pa icipan s’ Eng-
lish, as well as bo owing in English om he in luence o ex ensi e Czech use.
Howe e , p essu e o speak Czech only may also ac as an inhibi ing ac o o
bo owing, because indi iduals a e unable o bo ow om be ween hei languages
when hey eel ha hey mus only use one. Such p essu e, o lowe -le el speake s
o Czech, may ac ually inhibi hem om ying o speak in Czech i i is no en i ely
luen and hus being less likely o bo ow o non-accommoda ion ela ed pu poses
in hei English, as hei Czech is no p o icien enough o do so. Fo example, Pa -
icipan 8 eels as ong p essu e om he la ge socie y and communi y no o mix
be ween he wo languages and eels ha he is judged i he does.
Acco ding o he da a, 23% (3/13) o pa icipan s eel social p essu e o speak
Czech, 23% (3/13) somewha eel p essu e and 54% (7/13) do no eel p essu e o con-
o m. Only he da a om he pa icipan ’s inal answe is aken he e as i is consid-
e ed o e lec he si ua ion mo e accu a ely.
The e is asligh majo i y who do no eel such p essu e. Almos hal o he pa -
icipan s eel a leas some p essu e o speak Czech, especially in public si ua ions.
P essu e o con o m o speaking Czech igu es as acon ibu ing ac o in g amma i-
cal bo owing and a i ion p ocesses amongs hese pa icipan s.
4.1.2 PARTNER INFLUENCE
Pa ne in luence can ac as ad i e o g amma ical bo owing whe e pa icipan s
speak bo h languages wi h hei pa ne s, as speake s end o bo ow whe e and wi h
whom hey eel mos com o able, pa icula ly a home (§4.1.5). Pa icipan 3 speaks
English o he husband, who speaks o he in Czech. Pa icipan 7 no mally speaks
Czech a home wi h his wi e, bu will swi ch o and mix in English in some si ua ions.
Pa icipan 10 and his wi e “kind o ake u ns, wi h Czech and English, some imes
mixing hem up”.
6 Each o he p essu es and in luences in ol ed wi h his s udy a e summa ised in Table 6.
176 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
ion asked o pa icipan s, i canno be documen ed in Table 6. Howe e , conscious
engagemen in “language play” (Po e 2003: 116) is a o m o g amma ical bo ow-
ing in his si ua ion. Inno a ion a he han communi y p opaga ion is he ocus
he e.
Pa icipan s 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and 12 e e ed o engaging in language play. Pa icipan
1 s a ed ha i is some hing you “do only wi h people ha you’ e e y com o able
wi h” (see also §4.1.5). Pa icipan 2 e lec s ha she has a“ e y s ange [mix o ] lan-
guage” spoken “especially a e a ew glasses o wine” ha only she and he iends
unde s and. Pa icipan 7 discusses he addi ion o adiminu i e o an English iend’s
name o humo ous e ec : Eshl-ík Eshl-DIM ‘li le Ashley’. Pa icipan 11 sha ed ha
he uses Czech a ixes on English wo ds “only in un… wi h swea wo ds o s upid
s u … ha ’s jus o un, people enjoy he humou ”.
Pa icipan s 6 and 9 s a ed ha hey do no do his, which a e he same pa ici-
pan s who ha e anega i e opinion on mixing. O he pa icipan s we e unclea as o
whe he hey engage in language play.
Acco ding o Ma as and Sakel (2007: 848) and Heine and Ku e a (2005: 34–35),
in e locu o s a e “ac o s who make c ea i e use o language”. Speake s use hei
c ea i i y and abili ies in bo h languages o o m unique ph ases ha may in ol e
g amma ical bo owing.
4.4 SUBCONSCIOUS BORROWING
Whils by de ini ion pa icipan s canno de e mine aspec s o hei subconscious
bo owing in he momen , se e al discussed engaging in bo owing which hey la e
ealised had occu ed, ei he immedia ely a e he ac o upon e lec ion (see §3.2).
Pa icipan s ha e h ee ideologies ha come ac oss when e lec ing on hei sub-
conscious bo owing p ac ice. The i s ideology is ha subconscious bo owing e en s
ep esen mis akes. The second is ha Czechs do no speak English co ec ly, and he hi d
is he use o Czech should no a ec my English.
In line wi h he i s ideology, Pa icipan 1 e lec ed:
“I ead my w i ing o hea mysel speak and Id op a icles, I… s op using ‘a’, ‘ he’,
‘you know’…and mess up he wo d o de ali le bi because Czech wo d o de is
abi ee so i de ini ely does happen some imes ha Iwill ge o he end o he
sen ence and go, why did Isay i ha way?”
In his ins ance, he is asc ibing his ac ions o he in luence o his knowledge o he
Czech language.10 He also ecognises he in luence o hea ing L1 Czechs’ L2 English,
in line wi h he second ideology: “hea ing Czechs speak inco ec ly can in luence me
and suddenly hings ha you know a e w ong don’ sound so w ong”.
10 This is apossible example o syn ac ic bo owing. Pa icipan 1 does no use ‘a’ o ‘ he’
some imes (disuse o he a icle), possibly ollowing he pa e n o Czech, which does no
ha e a icles. In e ms o wo d o de , he may also be ollowing aCzech wo d o de pa e n
a he han an English one.

CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 177
In line wi h ideology h ee, Pa icipan 11 s a es: “some imes you can be saying
hings ha you hough , oh hang on ha ’s no igh … because you’ e been hinking and
speaking in Czech so o en o so many yea s ha you na i e language is s ill he e bu
i ’s… slowly ge ing pu on he backbu ne .”
Pa icipan 10 does no hink his syn ax is a ec ed, bu ha pe haps someone else
would no ice i . Du ing he obse a ion sessions in Cas le (2021a), he same pa ici-
pan s a ed ha , when i comes o mis akes in English, “some imes we’ e [he and his
colleague, also in he obse a ion session] no su e anymo e” a e ha ing li ed and
wo ked in he Czech Republic o 30 yea s, in alignmen wi h he hi d ideology.
In line wi h bo h he i s and las ideologies, Pa icipan 4 explained ha she may
acciden ally subconsciously “mix up he sen ence o de ” i she has been speaking in
Czech o along ime and hen needs o suddenly swi ch o English.
These e lec ions ob iously canno encompass he g amma ical bo owing ha
could be happening a an en i ely subconscious le el in e ms o no ealising ha
i has occu ed a all. Howe e , hey allow an insigh in o bo owing ha is subcon-
scious a he momen o speech.
4.5 BORROWING TENDENCIES
In Table 4, he bo owing endencies o he pa icipan s a e displayed. To c ea e his,
pa icipan speech da a om he obse a ion sessions was analysed (Cas le 2021a).
In Cas le (2021a), g oups o wo11 in e locu o s pa icipa ed in obse a ion sessions,
whe ein hey spoke abou opics including a el, amily, and ood (wi h discussion
shee p omp s). The ‘ ime’ column e e s o he amoun o ime in he obse a ion
session ha he pa icipan spoke o .
Examples o ag amma ical phenomenon a es a ions a e shown below. Exam-
ple (5) shows an ins ance o alack o he equi ed noun o m wi h an adjec i e, and
example (6) shows a icle omission. Example (4) in §4.3.1 is also ag amma ical phe-
nomenon a es a ion.
(5) Pa icipan 11
Unless you’ e an English o a pe son who
Unless you- o.be-2SG ART English-ADJ o ART pe son who
hasn’ go a lo o money
o.ha e-AUX-NEG o.ge -PST ART lo o money
‘Unless you’ e an English pe son o ape son who hasn’ go alo o money.’
(6) Pa icipan 6
He had done ansla ion o i
He AUX o-do.PST ansla ion o i
11 Ini ially, he sample had asize o ou een pa icipan s (hence g oups o wo), bu one
pa icipan was aised in he Czech Republic and hen li ed in Aus alia o ele en yea s
as an adul . Thei da a is hus unusable he e, bu he o he pa icipan ’s da a is s ill used
because hey ep esen he ideal a ge candida e o his esea ch: an L1 English speake
who lea ned Czech in adul hood and is now luen in he language.
178 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
Pa icipan
G amma ical
phenomena
a es a ions12
Bo owing
a es a ions13 Time Whe he hey say
hey bo ow
P1 6 2 9m 23s Yes
P2 5 1 8m 33s Yes
P3 3 2 6m 40s Yes
P4 3 0 7m 1s Yes
P5 0 0 6m 23s Yes
P6 3 1 12m 31s No/P e e s no o
P7 5 3 7m 43s Yes
P8 4 0 6m 15s Some imes/Abili y
is low in Czech
P9 0 0 10m 41s No
P10 5 1 8m 35s Yes
P11 15 5 11m 45s Yes/P e e s no o
P12 4 2 10m 16s Yes
P13 2 0 8m 38s Yes
Table 4.Pa icipan bo owing endencies
Pa icipan 11 p oduces he mos a es a ions by a . He also spoke o he second lon-
ges amoun o ime in o al. The e a e no a es a ions om Pa icipan 9, who s a es
ha he does no bo ow, bu also has alowe p o iciency in Czech. The e a e none
om Pa icipan 5, who spoke o he second sho es amoun o ime and spoke in
an in e iewe -like s yle.
Bo owing a es a ions a e, o he mos pa , p oduced by hose who say ha hey
bo ow. Howe e , he e is one a es a ion o abo owing by Pa icipan 6, who p e-
e s no o engage in bo owing, and i e by Pa icipan 11 who s a es ha he p e e s
no o bo ow. The e may be some subconscious bo owing occu ing.
4.6 SUMMARY
Social p essu es, cogni i e p essu es, gap illing, and c ea i i y we e conside ed in
de e mining he causes behind g amma ical bo owing. P essu es o con e gence
and s uc u al simila i y a e con ained wi hin he heading o cogni i e p essu es.
The social p essu es explo ed in his a icle include ha o p essu e om he
public, communi y, and pa ne s, as well as sel -p essu e. Sel -p essu es we e en-
compassed by h ee ideologies ha he pa icipan s adhe ed o, namely: i is no
good o mix languages; i is ok o mix in ce ain si ua ions; and i is no mal and na u al
o mix languages. Se e al o he social p essu es discussed in his a icle can ac
as bo h d i ing and inhibi ing in luences in e ms o g amma ical bo owing (c .
Table 5).
12 F om Cas le (2021a).
13 F om Cas le (2021a).
CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 179
P essu e D i ing in luence Inhibi ing in luence
P essu e o con o m o speaking Czech + +
Pa ne In luence + +
P essu e o keep he languages sepa a e – +
Sel -p essu e and pe spec i e on mixing + +
Table 5:Social p essu es as d i ing o inhibi ing in luences o g amma ical bo owing. (Key: + = i is
an in luence,– = i is no an in luence).
In some cases, he opinion ega ding g amma ical bo owing was as onge ac o
o a oidance o conscious g amma ical bo owing han ease o cogni i e p ocessing.
Mos pa icipan s had no di e ence in elaxedness in e ms o whe he hey we e
able o mix o no mix hei languages, and amajo i y also exp essed ha hey would
bo ow due o ease o exp ession.
Mos pa icipan s ag eed ha hey would bo ow due o use ulness/app op ia e-
ness and be e exp ession o meaning. Se e al pa icipan s also engage in language
play, pa icula ly wi h hose whom hey a e closes o and mos com o able speaking
wi h. The ela ionship o he in e locu o is an impo an elemen o he eme gence
o g amma ical bo owing.
These indings a e summa ised in e ms o each indi idual pa icipan o he
pu poses o ease o compa ison in Table 6.
Fac o P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13
Social
P essu es
Con o m o
speaking Czech S× × × × S✓ × ✓ × S× ✓
Pa ne
in luence Cz E M Cz M Cz M E E M M Cz E
Sepa a e
languages × × × S S × ✓ × ✓ S S × ✓
Sel -p essu e
no o bo ow × × × × × ✓ N N ✓N N N N
Cogni i e
P essu es
Relaxedness Sep N/A N N N Sep N M Sep N/A N/A N M
Fo ge ing/no
knowing awo d ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ × ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ease
o exp ession P✓P✓P×P✓✓✓✓✓✓
Gap
Filling
and
C ea i i y
Use ulness/
app op ia eness ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ × ✓ ✓ × ✓ ✓ ✓ P
Be e
exp ession
o meaning
P✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ × ✓ × × ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 6:Summa y o ac o s con ibu ing o g amma ical bo owing (Key: Cz = Czech, E= English,
M= amix o he languages, ✓ = yes, × = no, N = neu al, S= somewha , P = possible/p obable, Sep =
sepa a e, N = no di e ence).
180 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
4.7 ANALYSIS
Thomason and Kau man’s (1988) amewo k is u ilised o con i m he le el o social
p essu e and con ac expe ienced. The ypes o bo owing pa icipan s ha e engaged
in iden i ied in Cas le’s (2021a) pape include: unc ional su ix bo owing (de i a-
ional mo pheme) (see example 7 below); diminu i e su ix bo owing (de i a ional
mo pheme) (c . example 4), non-use o a icles (syn ac ic uncon en ionali y) (c . ex-
ample 8 below, example 6); and adjec i e placemen (syn ac ic (and mo phological)
uncon en ionali y) (c . example 5).
(7) Pa icipan 3: unc ional su ix bo owing
Plas ic box-o iš ě
Plas ic box-PLACE.SUFFIX
‘ he place whe e plas ic boxes a e kep ’
(8) Pa icipan 12: non-use o a icles
Immig an s we e s ill accep ed and suppo ed
Immig an -PL o-be.PST.3PL s ill o.accep -PST and o.suppo -PST
by coun y
by coun y
‘immig an s we e s ill accep ed and suppo ed by he coun y’
Table 7 below p o ides asumma y o which pa icipan s engaged in hese ou ypes
o bo owing. This can be iewed alongside Table 4 o a ulle unde s anding o he
bo owings which a e occu ing.
Bo owing ype Pa icipan s
PAT: Non-use o a icle 11 (4)14, 7 (3), 12 (2), 2 (1), 1 (1), 6 (1)
PAT: Adjec i e placemen 11 (1), 10 (1)
MAT: Func ional Su ixes 3 (2)
MAT: Diminu i es 1 (1)15
Table 7.Pa icipan bo owing occu ences
De i a ional mo pheme bo owing mee s he c i e ia o le el 3 bo owing on Thom-
ason and Kau man’s (1988) scale. I is in e es ing o ponde whe he his would hen
become ing ained in o he language o e he gene a ions i allowed o de elop and
14 The numbe in b acke s shows he amoun o occu ences o his phenomenon by his
pa icipan .
15 The e was also an ins ance whe e Pa icipan 12 men ioned ha bo owings such as e.g.
koalka ‘li le koala’ would be e y common in his speech and his bilingual communi y, bu
his was no included as his example was p omp ed. Also, Pa icipan 2 men ioned ha
he son uses he diminu i es –ka and –o ač on hei dog’s (non-Czech) name, bu again
his was no included as i was in he son’s speech, no he s.
CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 181
no exposed o he ou side wo ld. The o he o ms o syn ac ic uncon en ionali ies
a e placed a le el 2. As he e we e no ala ge amoun o a es a ions, he con ac
le el is placed be ween 2 and 3. The in ensi y o social con ac can be placed be ween
“sligh ly mo e in ense con ac ” and “mo e in ense con ac ” (Thomason and Kau man
1988: 74–76). Mos o he pa icipan s a e abo e aB2 le el o Czech compe ency (in
ac , he majo i y a e o C2 le el) and u ilise Czech in hei daily li es.
Howe e , as an inhibi ing ac o , a leas hal o pa icipan s el p essu e o a oid
mixing, which is no included in his scale. This is mos ele an o ins ances whe e
pa icipan s a e able o ell ha hey a e bo owing be ween he languages, o ex-
ample wi h MAT (§4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.1.5). Language Main enance E o (He dina and
Jessne 2002) is iden i ied as being an impo an ac o in English main enance o
hese pa icipan s (Cas le 2021a). English main enance and he p esence o Global
English may ac as inhibi ing ac o s in he eme gence o g amma ical bo owing.
Using Thomason and Kau man’s (1988) amewo k, i can be con i med ha he
le el o social p essu e expe ienced, and he ypes o bo owing pa icipan s ha e
engaged in (Cas le 2021a) a e ma ched. Howe e , his amewo k does no co e bo h
conscious and subconscious bo owing p ocesses. The p oposed model abo e aims o
add ess hese di e ences (c . Figu e 2).
Figu e 2.Conscious and subconscious bo owing p ocesses
Language B
Subconscious Bo owing
Conscious/c ea i e Bo owing
L1
L1
Con e sa ion
pa ne (s):
anyone
Con e sa ion
pa ne (s):
close iends/ amily
– Fo un, language
play, use ulness
– Gap Exis s
– Cogni i e P essu e
– S uc u al Simila i y
– Social P essu e
Need G amma ical
esou ces o
exp ession/s uc u e
om L2
G amma ical
esou ces o
exp ession
Mi iga ed by:
p esc ip i ism,
sel -p essu e,
socie al p essu e
Mi iga ed by:
Language
Main enance
E o (He dina
& Jessne 2002)
L2 PAT
bo owing
No/less L2
bo owing
L2 MAT
+ PAT
bo owing
No L2
MAT
bo owing
Bilingual
language
mode
Monolingual
language
mode
1 2 3
Language A
(base language)

182 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
This model conside s he con e sa ion pa ne in ol ed, whe he he bo owing
is subconscious, he di e en p essu es in ol ed in each si ua ion, and inhibi ing
ac o s in conscious bo owing. In subconscious bo owing, whe e he con e sa ion
pa ne may be anyone, need ( an Coe sem 2000) encompassing cogni i e p essu e
and social p essu e (Cas le 2021a) lead he speake o u ilise g amma ical esou ces
and s uc u e om he L2 and bo ow hem in o hei L1. As men ioned in Sec ion
4.1.3, his is mo e likely wi h PAT (Ma as and Sakel 2007: 842). This explains why
e en p esc ip i is s may engage in his ype o bo owing; hey can only con ol hei
conscious bo owings. Indeed, he p ocess o language managemen only occu s
when he pa icipan is paying a en ion o and hus awa e o hei language use.
Pa icipan s no e aphenomenon which is occu ing, e.g. ade ia ion om he no m,
e alua e i and hus implemen acommunica ion design (Nek apil and She man
2013: 91). P esc ip i is s a e unable o implemen adesign in communica ion i hey
a e unawa e ha hey ha e engaged in wha hey would likely ega d as ade ia ion
om he no m i i no good o mix languages.
Syn ac ic bo owing appea s o be mo e subconscious han MAT. Pa icipan s
we e much less able o iden i y ins ances o syn ac ic bo owing occu ing, indica -
ing ha hey we e less me alinguis ically awa e o his. They also o en hough o
syn ac ic uncon en ionali ies as “e o s” ha hey no ice a e hey ha e p oduced
he ph ase a he han achoice ha hey ha e made be o ehand, in line wi h he ide-
ology subconscious bo owing e en s ep esen mis akes (see §4.4).
In conscious bo owing, con e sa ion pa ne s a e hose close o he speake . An
oppo uni y o aMAT o ill ag amma ical gap is iden i ied, and he speake uses i
in play ulness o o use ulness and be e exp ession o meaning. Thus, an L2 bo -
owing occu s in he L1. This can be inhibi ed by p esc ip i ism, sel -p essu e, and
socie al p essu e. In conscious bo owings, speake s can choose whe he , when and
how hey engage in i .
Pa icipan s a e in eg a ing syn he ic s uc u es in o English. A eplacemen o
syn he ic s uc u es wi h analy ic s uc u es ep esen s language a i ion (Do ian
1982; Mahe 1985; 1991; Du ko a-Cope 2001: 39). Howe e , as syn he ic s uc u es a e
in eg a ed he e, hese bo owings do no ep esen a i ion, especially as i is by i s
gene a ion speake s, bu a he abo owing o esou ces and use o hem o un, o
o pu poses ela ed o conscious choice. I would appea ha pa icipan s a e engag-
ing in “u e ance managemen ” (Nek apil 2016: 14) in choosing which g amma ical
esou ces o u ilise in hei speech.
In e ms o acompa ison wi h Sou h Aus alian Czech, i was in e es ing o see
ha he e was mo phological MAT occu ing in his da a bu no in he SA Czech
da a (Cas le 2021b). Almos all o he bo owings in he SA Czech da a we e syn ac ic
PAT (Cas le 2021b). Zajíco á (2012: 304), in he a icle on he speech o Czech immi-
g an s in Pa aguay, s a ed ha he ac ha he e was no ins ance o Spanish bound
mo phemes bo owed in o Czech con i med how bo owing hie a chies a e ega d-
ing his ype o eplica ion. Howe e , he ichness o he mo phology may ha e an
e ec on wha is bo owed. The e is c ea i e bound mo pheme MAT e iden in his
s udy, ye no in Sou h Aus alian Czech o Pa aguayan Czech. Czech as asyn he ic
language has an a guably iche mo phology han English.
CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 183
5 CONCLUSION
Social p essu e, cogni i e p essu es, gap illing, and conscious c ea i e decisions
a e d i e s o g amma ical bo owing, wi h social p essu e and sel -p essu e po-
en ially ac ing as inhibi ing o ces. Asigni ican p opo ion o pa icipan s eel
p essu e o con o m o Czech bu he e we e s ill many who do no , demons a ing
ha he e we e no only di e en social si ua ions, bu also many di e en pe -
sonali ies a play in he sample. Amajo i y o pa icipan s also speak Czech only o
acombina ion o he wo languages wi h hei pa ne , and ala ge majo i y held
posi i e o neu al ideologies ega ding bo owing, hose being i is no mal and na -
u al o mix languages and i is ok o mix in ce ain si ua ions espec i ely. Howe e ,
jus o e hal o pa icipan s el a leas some p essu e o keep hei languages
sepa a e.
In he p ocess o analysis, he impo ance o sepa a ing conscious and subcon-
scious bo owing and he p ocesses leading o each came o ligh . I was iden i-
ied ha he e a e ce ain places o people wi h whom pa icipan s consciously
decide o engage in bo owing. Mos conscious, play ul bo owing occu s wi h
hose closes o he pa icipan , and his bo owing is o en MAT. PAT, especially
syn ac ic bo owing, is usually less conscious and can some imes be ealised a -
e he speake has inished. These ins ances o subconscious bo owings, once e-
alised by he pa icipan , a e usually conside ed “mis akes”, in o ming he ideology
subconscious bo owing e en s ep esen mis akes. Anew model was c ea ed which
akes bo h conscious and subconscious bo owing in o accoun , as well as includ-
ing inhibi ing e ec s such as p esc ip i is ideologies and associa ed sel -p essu e
o adhe e o hem, language main enance e o (He dina and Jessne 2002), and
socie al p essu e.
The main limi a ion o his s udy is he small sample size; howe e , i does no
aim o be e lec i e o he whole L1 English L2 Czech immig an communi y. I is
an explo a o y s udy in o he eali ies o g amma ical bo owing. Po en ial u u e
s udies could in ol e la ge sample sizes o ocus mo e hea ily on he psycholinguis-
ic pe spec i e in e ms o he oles o pe sonali y wi h ega d o how pa icipan s
eac o claim o eac o ou side sociolinguis ic in luences (see §4.1.1, 4.1.3). Resea ch
could also be unde aken on g amma ical bo owing be ween Czech and English in
he la ge communi y o L2 English L2 Czech immig an s li ing in he Czech Republic.
The e is aneed o mo e ypological s udies in his a ea in e ms o d awing on lan-
guages wi h di e en ypologies in con ac wi h one ano he .
Decla a ion o In e es S a emen
The au ho decla es ha he e is no con lic o in e es .
184 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2021
REFERENCES
B ody, J. (1987) Pa icles Bo owed om Spanish
as discou se ma ke s in Mayan Languages.
An h opological Linguis ics 29/4, 507–21.
Campbell, L. (1987) Syn ac ic change in Pipil.
In e na ional Jou nal o Ame ican Linguis ics
53/3, 253–80.
Campbell, L. (1993) On p oposed uni e sals o
g amma ical bo owing. In: Ae sen, H. and
R.J.Je e s (eds) His o ical Linguis ics 1989—
Pape s om he 9 h In e na ional Con e ence
on His o ical Linguis ics. Cu en Issues in
Linguis ic Theo y 106, 91–109. Ams e dam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
CANZA (2020) Gi ing back o he communi y.
CANZA (blog). A ailable a : h p://
www.canza.cz/cha i y/ [las accessed
1No embe 2020]
Cas le, C.M. (2021a) Expa s in P ague: Czech
bo owings in L1 English speake s.
Manusc ip submi ed o publica ion (copy
on ile wi h au ho ).
Cas le, C.M. (2021b) Language con ac ,
g amma ical bo owing, and a i ion:
As udy o Czech in Sou h Aus alia.
Manusc ip submi ed o publica ion (copy
on ile wi h au ho ).
Cas le, C.M. (2021c) In e iew Ques ions—
Expa s in P ague s udies. The Uni e si y
o Adelaide. A ailable a h ps://doi.
o g./10.25909/13624145. 1 [las accessed
5Ap il 2021]
Coe sem, F. . (2000) Agene al and uni ied heo y
o he ansmission p ocess in language con ac .
Heidelbe g: Uni e si ä s e lag Win e .
Co eanu, I. (1957) Ap opos des langues mix es
(su l’is o- oumain). Bucha es : Mélanges
linguis iques.
Council o Eu ope (2020) Global scale—
Table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common e e ence le els.
Council o Eu ope Conseil de l’Eu ope (blog).
A ailable a : h ps://www.coe.in /en/web/
common-eu opean- amewo k- e e ence-
languages/ able-1-ce -3.3-common-
e e ence-le els-global-scale [las accessed
4Oc obe 2020].
Czech S a is ical O ice (2020) 1–1
Cizinci celkem podle s á ního občans í
k31. 12. 2019 [Fo eigne s, o al by ci izenship
as a 31Decembe 2019]. Minis y o he
In e io o he ČR.
De Kle k, V. (2001) The c oss-ma iage language
dilemma: His language o he s? In e na ional
Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism
4/3, 197–216.
De La Fuen e, J.A.A. (2017) Impe a i es in
con ac . Linguis ic in e ac ions on he
Sakhalin Island. S udia Linguis ica Uni e si a is
Iagellonicae C aco iensis; K aków 134/4,
305–22.
Dob ushina, N. (2017) Con ac -Induced Usages
o Voli ional Moods in Eas Caucasian
Languages. The In e na ional Jou nal o
Bilingualism 21/5, 559–83.
Doğ uöz, A.S. and A.Backus (2009)
Inno a i e cons uc ions in Du ch Tu kish:
Anassessmen o ongoing con ac -induced
change. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion
12/1, 41–63.
Dong, J. (2016) Mobili y, oice and symbolic
es a i ica ion. An e hnog aphy o ‘Eli e
Mig an s’ in u ban China. In: A nau , K.,
J.Blommae , B.Ramp on and M.Spo i (eds)
Language and Supe di e si y, 174–93. New Yo k:
Rou ledge.
Do ian, N.D. (1982) Language loss and
main enance in language con ac si ua ions.
In: Lambe R.D. and B.F.F eed (eds) The
Loss o Language Skills, 44–59. Massachuse s:
Newbu y House Publishe s.
D ljača Ma gić, B. (2017) Communica ion
cou esy o condescension? Linguis ic
accommoda ion o na i e o non-na i e
speake s o English. Jou nal o English as
aLingua F anca 6/1, 29–55.
Du ko a-Cope, L. (2001) The language o Czech
Mo a ians in Texas: Do you know wha pá knu
ká u uhauza means? Sou hwes Jou nal o
Linguis ics 20/2, 51–84.
Fe guson, C.A. (1975) Towa d acha ac e isa ion
o English o eigne alk. An h opological
Linguis ics 17/1, 1–14.
CHLOE MICHELLE CASTLE 185
Ga dne -Chlo os, P. and M.Seco a (2018)
G amma ical change in Pa is F ench: In
si u ques ion wo ds in embedded con ex s.
Jou nal o F ench Language S udies 28/2,
181–207.
Gasio ek, J. and L.Vincze (2016) Modeling
mo i es o bilingual accommoda ion by
mino i y and majo i y language speake s.
Jou nal o Language and Social Psychology 35/3,
305–316.
Giles, H. (2009) The p ocess o communica ion
accommoda ion. In: Coupland, N. and
A.Jawo ski (eds) The new sociolinguis ics eade ,
276–286. London: Palg a e.
Giles, H., D.M.Taylo and R.Bou his
(1973) Towa d a heo y o in e pe sonal
accommoda ion h ough language: Some
Canadian da a. Language in Socie y 2/2,
177–192.
Giles, H. and N.Coupland (1991) Language:
Con ex s and consequences. Mil on Keynes:
Open Uni e si y P ess.
Gollub, U. (2020) Czech Placemen Tes . 17
Minu e Languages (blog). A ailable a : h ps://
www.17-minu e-languages.com/en/Czech-
placemen - es / [las accessed 20Ap il
2020].
Go .UK (2021) S uden isa: Who does no need
o p o e hei knowledge o English. Go .UK
(websi e). A ailable a : h ps://www.go .uk/
s uden - isa/knowledge-o -english? bclid=Iw
AR3kPNAoMV A XOLK sdY26CBn0qzicm7m
LIjPoiT8U 4yqHKYUAo1ld LU [las accessed
5May 2021].
G osjean, F. (1997) P ocessing mixed language:
Issues, indings, and models. In: de G oo ,
A.M.B. and J.F.K oll (eds) Tu o ials in
bilingualism: Psycholinguis ic pe spec i es,
225–254. New Je sey: Law ence E lbaum
Associa es Publishe s.
G osjean, F. (1998) S udying bilinguals:
Me hodological and concep ual issues.
Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion 1/2,
131–149.
Hale, K. (1971) Gaps in g amma and cul u e. In:
Hale, K., M.D.Kinkade and O.We ne (eds)
Linguis ics and an h opology, 295–315. Lisse:
The Pe e de Ridde P ess.
Hea h, J. (1978) Linguis ic di usion in A nhem
Land. Canbe a: Aus alian Ins i u e o
Abo iginal S udies.
Heine, B. and T.Ku e a (2005) Language
con ac and g amma ical change. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
He dina, P. and U.Jessne (2002) Adynamic
model o mul ilingualism: Pe spec i es o change
in psycholinguis ics. Cle edon: Mul ilingual
Ma e s.
Hill, J.H. and K.C.Hill (1981) Va ia ion in
ela i e clause cons uc ion in Mode n
Nahua l. In: Ka unen, F. (ed) Nahua l s udies
in memo y o Fe nando Ho casi as, 89–103.
Aus in: Depa men o Linguis ics, Uni e si y
o Texas.
Ka unen, F. (1976) U o-Az ecan and Spanish-
ype dependen clauses in Nahua l. In:
S ee e , S.B., C.A.Walke and S.S.Mu wene
(eds) Pape s om he pa asession on diach onic
syn ax, 150–158. Chicago: Chicago Linguis ics
Socie y.
La omaa, S. (1998) English in con ac wi h ‘ he
mos di icul language in he wo ld’: The
linguis ic si ua ion o Ame icans li ing in
Finland. In e na ional Jou nal o he Sociology o
Language 133/1, 51–71.
Lawson, M. (2016) Na a i e posi ioning
and ‘In eg a ion’ in li es yle mig a ion:
B i ish mig an s in A iège, F ance.
Language and In e cul u al Communica ion
17/1, 58–75.
Leinonen, J. (2012) In isible immig an s,
isible expa s? Ame icans in Finnish
discou ses on immig a ion and
in e na ionaliza ion. No dic Jou nal o
Mig a ion Resea ch 2/3, 213–23.
Lipski, J.M. (2017) Language swi ching
cons ain s: Mo e han syn ax? Da a om
Media Lengua. Bilingualism 20/4, 722–46.
Loewen, S. and L.Plonsky (2015) An A–Zo
applied linguis ics esea ch me hods. London:
Palg a e.
Mahe , J. (1985) Con ac linguis ics: The language
encla e phenomenon. New Yo k: New Yo k
Uni e si y.
Mahe , J. (1991) Ac osslinguis ic s udy o
language con ac and language a i ion.