UNIVERSITY OF VAASA Faculty of Philosophy Kimmo Veikkanen “Pihvi ja semmonen barbecue-henkinen Texas style -veto” Codeswitching in a Finnish Reality Television Programme Top Chef Suomi Master’s Thesis Vaasa 2014 1 ABSTRACT 3 1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Material 9 1.2 Method 12 1.3 Reality Television and Its Authenticity 15 1.4 Top Chef Suomi 19 2 LANGUAGES FOR SPECIAL AND GENERAL PURPOSES 21 2.1 Languages for Special Purposes 21 2.2 Languages for Special Purposes and Languages for General Purposes 23 2.3 LSP in the Restaurant Business 26 3 CODESWITCHING 33 3.1 Codeswitching in General 33 3.2 Structures of Codeswitching 34 3.3 Integrating Foreign-Language Items 36 3.4 Integrating English into Finnish 37 3.5 Functions of Codeswitching: Transactional and Social 39 3.6 Codeswitching or Borrowing? 40 3.7 Language Attrition, Convergence, Acquisition and Death, and the Linguistic Situation in Contemporary Finland 44 4 CODESWITCHING AND LANGUAGE CONTACT IN TOP CHEF SUOMI 48 4.1 The Structure of Codeswitching in Top Chef Suomi 50 4.1.1 Embedded Language Constituents and Embedded Language Islands 53 4.1.2 Intersentential and Intrasentential Switching 59 4.1.3 Lexical Categories of the Codeswitches 60 4.2 The Markedness of the Codeswitches 62 4.3 Functions of the Codeswitches 65 4.4 The Context of Codeswitching and the Codeswitchers 70 2 5 CONCLUSIONS 77 WORKS CITED 81 FIGURES Figure 1: The embedding of the embedded language constituents into the matrix language 54 Figure 2: The lexical categories the codeswitches occupied 61 Figure 3: The amount of professional and non-professional switches 66 Figure 4: The codeswitches in the different conversational categories of the programme 71 Figure 5: The amount of codeswitches from Finnish to English in each episode 73 Figure 6: The amount of codeswitches by each regular interlocutor in the programme 74 3 UNIVERSITY OF VAASA Faculty of Philosophy Discipline: English Studies Author: Kimmo Veikkanen Master’s Thesis: “Pihvi ja semmonen barbecue-henkinen Texas style -veto” Codeswitching in a Finnish Reality Television Programme Top Chef Suomi Degree: Master of Arts Date: 2014 Supervisor: Sirkku Aaltonen, Kristiina Abdallah ABSTRACT Tämä tutkimus sijoittuu kielikontaktitutkimuksen piiriin ja siinä tarkasteltiin koodinvaihtoa englannin ja suomen kielien välillä. Tutkimusmateriaali koostui suomalaisen tosi-tv-ohjelman, Top Chef Suomen, kolmannesta tuotantokaudesta, joka esitettiin MTV3-kanavalla kevätkaudella 2013. Tutkittavan kielen tuottajat olivat ammattikokkeja. Koodinvaihdon lisäksi tutkimuksen toinen keskeinen näkökulma oli erikoiskielet. Tutkimuksen oletus olikin, että tutkittavien kielentuottajien puheessa esiintyneet englanninkieliset ainekset olivat osittain seurausta heidän erikoisalansa terminologiasta. Tutkimus lähestyi aihettaan sosiolingvistisestä näkökulmasta ja keskittyi siihen, mikä motivoi koodinvaihdon, millaisissa tilanteissa englanninkielisiä ilmauksia esiintyi ja millaiset puhujat käyttivät englannin kieltä suomen kielen seassa. Tutkimuksessa analysoitiin myös, miten englanninkieliset ilmaukset käyttäytyivät suomenkielisessä puheessa, eli mitä englanninkieliselle ainekselle tapahtui, kun se istutettiin foneettisesti ja morfologisesti hyvin erilaiseen suomen kieleen. Keskeinen tutkimuskysymys oli, missä määrin englannin kieltä käytettiin suomen kielen seassa puhujien ammatista johtuen ja missä määrin koodinvaihto oli muuta kuin pelkkää tiedonvälitystä. Tutkimuksen perusteella koodinvaihdolla oli selkeästi kaksi erillistä käyttötarkoitusta analysoidussa materiaalissa: Ensinnäkin noin puolet materiaalin englanninkielisistä ilmauksista täytti leksikaalisia aukkoja puhujien kielessä. Ammattikokkien erikoiskieli on kansainvälistä. Näin ollen kyetäkseen kommunikoimaan eksaktisti ja kompaktisti kollegoidensa kesken puhujien oli käytettävä huomattavasti vierasperäisiä ilmauksia ja termejä, jotka yleiskieliselle suomen puhujalle saattavat olla käsittämättömiä. Toinen koodinvaihdon selkeä käyttötarkoitus oli toimia sosiaalisena välineenä, joka ei niinkään perustunut tarpeeseen löytää oikea ja eksaktein sana, vaan rakensi puhujan identiteettiä ja suhdetta kanssapuhujiin. Nämä koodinvaihdot lienevät seurausta englannin kielen ja anglikaanisten kulttuurien vahvasta läsnäolosta nykypäivän Suomessa. KEYWORDS: codeswitching, LSP, languages for special purposes, special purpose languages, language contact, borrowing, gastronomic language, language of chefs 5 1 INTRODUCTION The use of the English language is constantly increasing in Finland. This can be seen, for example, in the stronger general command of English in Finland compared to the situation a few decades ago. Increasingly frequent language contact between English and Finnish is another sign of English occupying a strong role in Finland. English is present in all walks of life from youth slang to professional special purpose languages. This trend has been visible for the past half a century. (Batterbee 2002: 261) The dominance of English as the world language, and the resulting impact of English on Finnish, is evident in the vernacular Finnish as well as in the business and academic languages and in the special purpose languages of various professions (Järvinen 2012). The spread of English is, in fact, so vast in Finland that it has even been suggested that English be granted the status of an official language (Phillipson 1993: 25). According to the national statistical institution in Finland, Statistics Finland (2013), in 2012 altogether 99.4 per cent in the grades 7–9 in the Finnish comprehensive school studied English either as a compulsory or optional foreign language. Already in the grades 1–6, 66.3 per cent of the Finnish pupils studied English. Finnish popular culture and entertainment is also highly Anglo-Americanised as nearly half of the programmes on Finnish television are from an English speaking culture and in English. Instead of being dubbed, all foreign language material, excluding small children’s programming, is subtitled, and thus the Finnish audience hears foreign languages, mostly English, every day. (Batterbee 2002: 262) This kind of development is likely to have an effect on the language of the Finns. The increasing dominance of English in Finland and the reasons why more and more English terminology and structures enter the Finnish language has been discussed in the Finnish media for some years now. The role of English in Finland has raised concerns about the future of the Finnish language, and English has been criticised for distorting the Finnish language (Leppänen, Nikula & Kääntä 2008: 9–10). It has been suggested that the cause for the spread of English lies, on one hand, in the poor command of 6 mother tongue 1 of the Finnish youth, and on the other hand, in their increasing use of English language forms within Finnish: the process is said to be twofold, as the command of Finnish weakens, the role of English strengthens. However, as the Finnish scholar and researcher Lari Kotilainen notes in an interview by the Finnish magazine Suomen Kuvalehti (Järvinen 2012), the biggest problem is not the population’s poor competence of the Finnish language, but the fact that the academics in Finland communicate with each other mainly in English. Kotilainen continues to emphasise that also the primary language of business in Finland is nowadays very often English. This results in the lack of special terminology in Finnish and thus more English-origin words and structures emerge in the Finnish language. English is not affecting only the Finnish language, but to a varying extent other Western, European, and even for example Asian, languages as well. English has gained the role of an international language. It is the lingua franca of the Western countries. (Hiidenmaa 2003: 56–58) As globalization proceeds, English will influence non- Western countries as well. As English enters other languages – be it via its role as the lingua franca, the provider of special language terminology, or the source of slang expressions – it evidently has an effect on the receiving language. One of the clearest and first linguistic phenomena, in which this becomes visible, is codeswitching. Codeswitching is a phenomenon, in which two or more codes, that is, languages, are used within one context (Eastman 1992: 16–17). Academic interest in codeswitching has attracted scholars to approach it from a variety of perspectives. One of the pioneers has been Carol Myers-Scotton (eg. 1992, 1993), whose codeswitching theory and Matrix Language Frame model has played an essential role in laying the theoretical foundation for many successive studies. Myers-Scotton’s categorization of codeswitches into matrix language (the language that provides most of the morphemes in the context) and embedded language (the language to which the code is occasionally switched) constituents, matrix language islands and embedded language islands has been applied, for instance, by Helena Halmari, professor of the department of English at 1 There are two official languages in Finland: Finnish (mother tongue of 90% of the population) and Swedish (mother tongue of 5% of the population). 7 Sam Houston State University in the United States. Another approach to codeswithcing is that by Pieter Muysken (eg. 1995), who has categorised codeswitches into situational and metaphorical switches according to their function. When it comes to the language pair of Finnish and English, codeswitching has most notably been studied by Helena Halmari (1997), who concentrated on codeswitching in the language of Finnish immigrants in the US, and described how English items behave when entering the Finnish syntax thus concluding what items therefore can be used within Finnish and what cannot. Poplack, Wheeler and Westwood (1989) have also studied language contact between Finnish and English in their study of Finnish-English bilingualism, which focused on the language of Finnish immigrants in Canada and introduced the theory of flagging, that is, how codeswitching can be marked and made evident. Also, Virtaranta, Jönsson-Korhola, Martin and Kainulainen (1993) have studied the language of the North American Finnish immigrants. Despite of the media’s interest in the role of English in Finland, academic research of how the so called Anglicisation of Finnish can be seen in different contexts has not been very abundant. Although most of the scholars who have studied language contact between English and Finnish have concentrated mainly on the language of Finnish emigrants (as opposed to the language of the Finnish people in Finland), there are a few scholars who have focused on the role of English in the Finnish language used in Finland. One of such scholars is Pirjo Hiidenmaa (2003), who states that the increasing role of English in Finland is not a threat to the Finnish language, but another form of how Finnish evolves. Sirpa Leppänen, Tarja Nikula and Leila Kääntä (2008) have also contributed to the research on the role of English in Finland with their article collection Kolmas kotimainen (in English Third National, which humorously refers to English being the third national language of Finland, in addition to Finnish and Swedish). This thesis continues the research of English’s role in Finland as I study how English is present in a Finnish reality television show, an everyday context aimed at a broad audience. The material of this study therefore is the language represented in a Finnish reality television programme, Top Chef Suomi. All of the interlocutors in the material of 8 this thesis thus represent a certain profession, chefs. The main focus of this thesis is on codeswitching and the aim is to observe how and in what kind of situations codeswitching occurs. The main research questions are as follows: What kind of expressions – professional terms, slang phrases, idioms, proverbs – tend to get switched to English, by whom, and how? Is codeswitching, in fact, a characteristic of the Finnish special purpose language of the chefs? What other purposes does the use of English within Finnish serve? Therefore, this study aims to provide information about the role of English in contemporary Finland and about the ways in which the foreign language (which is widely spoken yet does not have the status of an official language) is affecting standard Finnish. As the role of English is increasing in Finland, studies like this are needed to understand the phenomenon and possibly to predict how it will develop. The emphasis of this study will be on the social aspect of codeswitching. That means that I concentrate mainly on the situations related to the switches and the possible changes the switches cast upon the conversation thereafter, that is, does the codeswitch trigger further codeswitches. In other words, my main focus will not be in how the switched items behave phonetically and morphologically when they enter the syntax of another language, yet I will not overlook that aspect either. Furthermore, I want to find out whether the switched items belong to the professional lexicon of the interlocutors, and, more specifically, if they are used because of their transactional and communicative functions, or if the items rather serve a stylistic or symbolic function and can therefore be considered as social switches. The structure of this thesis is as follows: First, to clarify the context, in which codeswitching occurs in the material of the thesis, I will give a brief description of reality television as a form of entertainment in the end of this introduction. The concept, structure and main cast of the reality television show Top Chef Suomi will also be described briefly towards the end of this introduction. Moving on, in the second part of the thesis I will concentrate on the characteristics of special purpose languages with the emphasis on the language of restaurant business. In the third part, I will discuss codeswitching from a theoretical point of view and thus determine what is meant by codeswitching in this study and how it functions, especially in spoken language. In the 9 fourth chapter, I examine and analyse the codeswitches found in the third season of the television programme Top Chef Suomi in further detail, approaching them from a variety of perspectives. Finally, the fifth part concludes the thesis. 1.1 Material In this thesis, codeswitching was studied in the context of the third season of the reality television show Top Chef Suomi, which consists of 10 approximately 40 to 45 minute long episodes. Top Chef Suomi’s third season was aired on MTV3 between February 2013 and April 2013. The third season of Top Chef Suomi had altogether 13 contestants. Most of them were Finnish who spoke Finnish as their first language, excluding an originally Mexican contestant, who mainly spoke English in the show, and occasionally switched to Finnish. Furthermore, one of the contestants was a bilingual Swedish- speaking Finn, but as her command of the Finnish language did not seem any inferior to that of those who spoke Finnish as their first language, she was included in the research material of this study. The language of the Swedish-speaking bilingual contestant, indeed, appeared to be on the same level with the Finnish-speaking contestants. The contestants were of various ages, the youngest one being 20 years and the oldest one 43 years old. The majority of the contestants were in their twenties or early thirties. As this study concentrated on the spoken language in Top Chef Suomi, on-screen texts and signs seen on the background were excluded from the material. However, if a written text was somehow considered to cause or trigger a codeswitch, its effect on the spoken language was noted. In the present study, I concentrated only on those interlocutors who mainly spoke Finnish. Therefore the Mexican contestant as well as those guest judges who did not speak Finnish enough to be able to have conversations in it were excluded from the study. After all, for the non-Finnish speaking interlocutors, the possible mixing of languages served a clear purpose. That is, if they switched between languages, its purpose probably was to fill lexical gaps. Codeswitching in this sort of intercultural and multilingual setting is, of course, an interesting matter, but given the limited scope of the present study, is not included in this thesis. 10 There were altogether 239 switches between Finnish and English in the ten Top Chef Suomi episodes analysed. Interestingly, there was also switching from Finnish to French, Italian, German and Swedish, and from Swedish to Finnish. Such switches were included in the material of this thesis only if their origins could either be in English or in some other language (French, Italian, German etcetera). In other words, they were established borrowings in the English language or words of which etymology was not clear. The professional vocabulary of Finnish chefs, of course, includes many utterances from languages other than English, but since the main purpose of this thesis is to analyse codeswitching between Finnish and English – as opposed to describe the special language of Finnish chefs’ in its entirety – the material had to be outlined to include only the clearly English-origin switches. The few occasions where there was a switch from Swedish to English (there were a few occasions in Top Chef Suomi where Swedish functioned as the matrix language) were still taken into account in this thesis, since the interlocutors were Finnish-speakers and since they used Swedish much like they would use Finnish. Each episode of Top Chef Suomi followed a similar structure. First, the contestants were given a short task, and the winner of that task was given immunity in that episode’s elimination, or another reward. This part was then followed by a main challenge of the episode, where the contestants had more time to produce a dish around a certain theme. After that, the judges evaluated each contestant’s dish, then gave feedback to the contestants, and finally determined who would be the winner of that episode and who would be eliminated. Between and among each of these main sections of the episodes, there were inserts that involved the contestants speaking seemingly spontaneously to each other, as well as voice-over sections where the contestants were being interviewed (although the interviewer’s voice was never heard) in a studio setting after the actual event they were commenting on. Since the linguistic setting most likely affects how the interlocutors use language, that is, codeswitching most likely occurs more frequently in spontaneous conversation than in an interview or scripted presentations, I categorised the different linguistic settings 11 for the purposes of this thesis. The categories rose from the structure of the episodes. They consist of testimonials, briefings, interviews, presentations, evaluations, feedbacks, and finally, spontaneous conversations. The latter includes all various types of non-pre-practiced conversations, such as the contestants speaking to each other freely while they were working, or pieces of conversations heard in the few parts of the programme that took place during the contestants’ spare time. Testimonials refer to the clips, in which the contestants were most likely interviewed by an invisible and muted interviewer in front of a camera. Testimonials were often heard partly as voice-overs. In testimonials the contestants usually commented on the current situation or explained how they felt when they were given a task or when their dish was being evaluated. Briefings include the parts of the programme where the hostess and/or one of the judges presented the tasks to the contestants. Interviews, much like spontaneous conversations, were probably not as practiced as for example briefings. They refer to the parts of the programme, where one of the judges walked among the chefs while they prepared their dishes, and asked them a few questions about the work in process. Presentations occurred when the contestants explained to the judges what they had prepared and also when the hostess presented the other judges to the contestants. Evaluations were, at least seemingly, the most spontaneous conversational situations of the judges. They were the part of the programme where the judges, among themselves, tasted the dishes the contestants had prepared and analysed them while discussing with each other. Finally, feedbacks refer to the partly spontaneous conversational situations, where the judges sat behind their table and evaluated the work of the best and the worst contestants of the episode, while the contestants stood in line in front of the judges’ table. These sections of the programme were highly dramatized in post-production by such means as editing and adding music and sound-effects. Although reality television shows provide a more spontaneous and therefore more authentic linguistic setting than for example scripted fictive television shows, parts of Top Chef Suomi were probably pre-written. In other words, the hostess’ and the judges’ speeches for example in briefings and in the beginning of feedback sessions did not seem to be spontaneous, or free-flowing, but instead planned beforehand and, as mentioned, scripted. Following the style of reality television, the editing of the 12 programme was also rather fast-paced, which made the conversations and the overall program seem hectic. Parts of conversations were possibly edited out, and some conversations most likely started later or ended sooner than they did in the actual situation. The pace of the programme, in fact, made it occasionally challenging to determine the context in which certain phrases were uttered, since the voice-over speeches and the actual conversations could be heard almost simultaneously. Therefore the material of this thesis was the representation of the language used in a television show rather than authentic, real-life conversations. 1.2 Method All the language contact expressions were collected from the ten episodes of Top Chef Suomi and then determined as codeswitches, based on the descriptions provided in chapter three of this thesis. The switches were then categorised as either intersentential (affecting one or more sentences) or intrasentential (occurring within sentence boundaries) switches. Along with this, I used Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame model to determine the matrix language and the embedded language in each situation. Due to the presence of one English speaking contestant and a few English speaking guest judges in the show, the matrix language was not always Finnish in Top Chef Suomi – although the matrix language of the show as a whole clearly is Finnish (despite of its bilingual title that already includes, in fact, a codeswitch). Therefore with each codeswitch, I first had to analyse which language in fact was the matrix language and which language was the embedded language in that context and situation. I used dictionaries to determine whether a switched single lexical item was a codeswitch, and thus belonged to the material of this study. With switches longer than a word or two, the combination of morphemes, lexical items, and syntax, usually indicated what the embedded language was. With single lexical items, however, it was sometimes unclear whether a word was English, Finnish, or some other language. Therefore dictionaries had to be used to determine whether the word in fact was a codeswitch or not: To separate English-origin borrowings from codeswitches, I used 13 monolingual Finnish dictionaries. If the word could be found in general Finnish dictionaries, it was considered to belong in the Finnish lexicon and thus excluded from the material. This, however, did not include those words that could be found in Finnish gastronomic dictionaries, which often also list a variety of foreign-language items (see section 2.3 for the special language of restaurant business). If a switched word was not found in the Finnish dictionaries used, and the word was clearly not of English origin, I compared that word to the corresponding expressions in Swedish, German and major Latin languages (French, Italian and Spanish). Then, if the closest equivalent of the word was English and its pronunciation was closest to that of the English equivalent, the word was determined to be a switch to English. As languages in general, English, too, borrows vocabulary from other languages. English, in fact, is more inclined to borrowing than for example French, and approximately 75 per cent of the English lexicon originates from some other language (Winford 2003: 29). Therefore, as was already mentioned earlier in this introduction, some words could be considered as either English or some other language. What language is, for example, the word ‘pastrami’? Is it Italian, Spanish, French, or English? It is, in fact, all of the above. In such situations, when a word has travelled from another language to English, unchanged in its spelled form, I used a general English dictionary, namely Oxford English Dictionary, to determine the word’s origin and its commonness in English. In the case of ‘pastrami’, the word clearly can be thought of as belonging to the English vocabulary, as it can be found in Oxford English Dictionary (2014a), which lists Turkish and Romanian as the word’s main source languages, but notes that in the US, and thus in the English language, it has acquired a slightly different and broader meaning. However, if such a word was clearly pronounced as some other language than English (for example ‘pastrami’ pronounced with an alveolar tap, that is “rolling r”, and with a long, open front unrounded ‘a’ sound, as it is pronounced for example in Italian), it was considered a codeswitch between Finnish and some other language and thus excluded from the material of this thesis. Codeswitches were further categorized as either professional or non-professional. Professional codeswitches were considered to be triggered by the interlocutor’s profession, restaurant chef, and belonging to the special purpose language of restaurant 14 business. Such may have been the case, when one of the contestants, Kira Weckman, in the end of a pork themed episode presented her pork dish to the judges: (1) Kira Weckman, contestant: Mun raaka-aine oli porsaan ribs. Haudutin ja oon grillannut sitä myös. Ja porsaankylkeä samalla tapaa. Sweet chili -kastiketta ja kasvisvokkia. Retikkaa löytyy myös annoksesta. (MTV Media 2013a) ’My ingredient was pork ribs. I also stewed and grilled it. There’s also pork ribs/cutlet prepared the same way. Sweet chili sauce and vegetarian wok. There’s also radish in the dish.’ In the example above, the contestant uses two English items, ribs ‘ribs’ and sweet chili - kastiketta ‘sweet chili sauce’. Vokkia ‘wok’ is not considered a codeswitch, since it can be found in Finnish dictionaries (eg. Itkonen & Maamies 2007: 439). Based on various restaurant menus and recipes in the Internet, as well as Kaarina Turtia’s (2009: 470) Finnish gastronomic glossary Gastronomian sanakirja [Dictionary of Gastronomy], ‘ribs’ is commonly used in Finnish cooking terminology to describe grilled pork chops, or ribs, that are cooked in a certain way and usually still have the actual rib bones in the meat. The word ‘ribs’, however, cannot be found in Finnish dictionaries. It seems that porsaankyljys/porsaankylki ‘ribs’/’pork chops’/’pork cutlets’ is used alongside ‘ribs’ in Finnish terminology, and the contestant also does so in the example when she adds ja porsaankylkeä samalla tapaa ‘and pork ribs prepared the same way’. ‘Sweet chili’ also seems to be a common term in Finnish cooking terminology when referring to a certain type of sweet sauce seasoned with chili, although ‘sweet’ or ‘sweet chili’ is not considered Finnish (‘chili’ per se, however, is listed in Finnish dictionaries and is therefore not a codeswitch). In the terminology of Finnish chefs, ‘ribs’ occupies semantically a bit smaller area than porsaankyljys or porsaankylki, which can be prepared any way, and thus the contestant uses the word ‘ribs’ instead of the Finnish equivalent kyljys or kylki. 15 I collected all the examples in this thesis from the material as I heard them in the broadcasted version of the episode. Despite of my requests, the production company of Top Chef Suomi, Solar Television Oy, was not able to provide me with DVD copies and possible scripts of the Top Chef Suomi episodes. Therefore I collected the research material from the broadcasted episodes that I had recorded with a digital video recorder. I then transcribed the heard conversation. When possible, full conversations or monologues were written down. If, however, the previous or following section of the conversation was free of codeswitching and did not trigger it or was not affected by it, it was not included in the example. The contact expressions are in italics. All translations from Finnish into English in the examples are mine. To help determine whether a foreign origin utterance is a professional cooking term used also in Finland or not, a few dictionaries and glossaries were used. The primary sources of information were Kaarina Turtia’s (2009) Gastronomian sanakirja and the online glossary of the Finnish member-organisation of Chaîne des Rôtisseurs, an international gastronomic society founded in Paris, France, in the 1950s (Chaîne des Rôtisseurs Finlande 2013). It was also determined whether the codeswitch was triggered by an earlier switch in the conversation or whether it caused the language of the rest of the conversation to change, or if it prompted further switches. It was also noted who switched the code and whether or not codeswitching was more frequent in the language of some contestants than others. 1.3 Reality Television and Its Authenticity Reality television, as known today, is a fairly new and highly popular television genre, which developed around the change of the millennium. Reality television’s basis lies in two other television genres: documentaries and game shows. The history of the genre can be traced, on one hand, all the way back to the 1950s, when the American hidden camera show, Candid Camera, was first aired (Taddeo & Dvorak 2010: 1), and on the 16 other hand, to the 1930s, when the first television news were broadcasted (Carmichael 2010: vii). Nowadays, however, reality television is a distinctive genre of its own – something not quite a documentary, not quite a game show. (Ellis 2007: 124) In most reality television shows ordinary people are taken away from their normal lives, either by setting a challenge or creating an artificial, and often pressured, game-show- like setting. Reality television is considered first and foremost entertainment, both to the viewers and to the participants. As John Ellis (2007: 124) points out, the aspect of entertainment – be it via the pleasure of “peeping” for the viewers or the possible prizes and fame for the participants – is what mostly separates reality television from documentaries. Documentaries attempt to portray people in their everyday life and provide the viewer with a constructive explanation for the behaviour of the characters, whereas in reality television, the construction of “realism” is more chaotic and based on the repetition of the most dramatic key moments. In most reality television shows, the participants compete on rather simple, everyday tasks and challenges, such as learning to drive, taking a new job, or, as in Top Chef, cooking. In addition to the pleasure of peeping, one of the strongest ways by which reality television attempts to provide the viewer with entertainment is through human emotions: Many reality television characters – be it an old lady who finally gets the long-needed makeover for her house in Extreme Makeover: Home Edition or a chef trying to make the perfect omelette for the third time, just to avoid elimination in Top Chef – would not be as interesting without their background stories. This sort of storytelling is not unlike what is seen in fictional drama and daytime soap operas, and the function of these narratives is, as Deborah A. Carmichael (2010: vii) puts it, to “connect with shared realities”. Reality television is said to offer researchers of several fields some complex areas to study. The extent to which reality television in fact is “real” is a much discussed issue. Carmichael (2010: vii) claims that reality television represents reality and is “real”, albeit edited and scripted, which, paradoxically enough, can be seen to eliminate the aspect of realism. Is a representation of reality actually real if it has been edited to fit the 17 production team’s needs? An increasing trend, however, is to divide “traditional”, reality television shows from the unscripted new types of shows, often referred to as “docu-soaps” or “documentary reality television”. As the producers Mark Benjamin and Marc Levin of one such show, Jersey Strong, state in the interview of Indiewire magazine (Willmore 2013), their main agenda is to “put the real back in reality” – a goal, which according to the producers is achieved especially through language: portraying authentic, unscripted language that occurs in real situations and is filmed “on-the-fly”, which means during the actual situations in authentic locations as opposed to interviewing the participants in an artificial setting, or writing scripts for parts of the dialogue. Different reality television subgenres seem to use different approaches, and in most reality challenge shows (see next page for more on reality challenge shows), such as Top Chef, the tendency seems to be to mix “on-the-fly” conversations with post- recorded interviews. The sincerity of the participants in reality television shows is uncertain as well: Are the people we see on reality television, in fact, real people? On one hand the participants are portrayed as authentic, ordinary people, but already the fact that they are participating in a reality show suggests that they, in fact, are performing certain versions of themselves, or they even are constructed personas or fictive characters. Reality television is therefore based on a paradox: the viewers are seeking reality from artificial settings and probably insincere people. Ellis (2007: 125–126) states that the biggest flaw a reality show participant can have is insincerity, as it is against the fundamental nature of reality television. A contestant in a reality television programme, who clearly “plays the game” instead of just living their everyday life within the framework of the show, is often disregarded by the audience as “fake”. As Ellis (ibid.) writes, “reality TV depends on putting the reality of ordinary people into defined artificial situations, and letting viewers discover and condone the sincere and trustworthy”. As reality television has evolved as a genre, its game-show roots have become more evident, which has led to a vast subgenre of reality television: reality challenge shows. Challenge shows are those reality shows that revolve around a certain theme or skill, such as music and vocal skills in such shows as Pop Idol or The Voice, losing weight in 18 Biggest Loser, or cooking in such shows as Master Chef, Hell’s Kitchen and of course Top Chef. The weekly episodes of challenge shows tend to follow a certain structure, which centres on the main challenge of that week and culminates in the judging followed by elimination. The fast-paced editing of challenge shows usually includes several types of commentary overlapping each other, such as possible hosts’ voice-over sections introducing the scene, the contestants speaking to the camera while evaluating their own or other contestants’ efforts in the challenge, possible experts giving advice to the contestants, all the while showing the actual situation and conversation on the background. The plenitude of voices allows different views, which supports the function of reality television as a genre merely portraying reality as is, instead of providing the viewers with any kind of structured analysis, as documentaries tend to do. (Ellis 2007: 128–129) Given the aforementioned description of challenge shows, Top Chef indeed falls into this category. In reality television, including challenge shows, one of the most discussed issues is what is considered acceptable behaviour. Television has been traditionally seen as a tool to define what is considered proper behaviour and what is not. However, since reality television aims to portray some version of reality, and the production team tries to minimize the level of their own participation, various models for behaviour occur – including what is considered as improper behaviour. (Ellis 2007: 129–130) This includes various ways of speaking as well, since the language heard on television is no longer as standardized or proper as it may have been before reality shows. The idea of “public speaking” is slowly disappearing, and no longer is everyone expected to use standard, or even correct, language in television. Unlike other reality shows, however, the challenge shows seem to entail a more moral agenda. As Ellis (2007: 130) notes, one of the aims of challenge shows is, in fact, to better the behaviour and/or skills of the participants and in the end demonstrate how anyone can improve their skills. 19 1.4 Top Chef Suomi Culinary reality shows form one of the biggest subgenres of reality television and reality challenge shows. They are a global phenomenon, which relies on the tradition of cooking shows and TV chefs. Such formats as Hell’s Kitchen, Master Chef, and Top Chef, have local versions in several countries. In addition to the domestic adaptations of the shows, the original – usually American or British – versions of these cooking shows are also broadcasted abroad. For example in Finland, MTV Media has broadcasted several seasons of the original, American Top Chef. Culinary reality shows (or lifestyle shows as they are often called) are so popular that there are even entire channels (such as Good Food in Britain and Food Network in North America) dedicated to cooking shows and culinary reality television only. James Leggott and Tobias Hochscherf (2010: 47) state that the vast spread of culinary reality shows has resulted in the quick appearance of foreign food-related terms, such as “tapas” and “al dente”, in the everyday lexicon of the English speaking world. One of the best known culinary challenge shows, Top Chef, is an international reality show format that was originally created in 2006 in the United States for the cable television network Bravo. At the time of writing this thesis, there have been eleven American seasons of Top Chef and two spin-offs (separate shows that are based on the original series). The format has been sold to nine countries, where local versions have been produced – one of them being Finland’s Top Chef Suomi. In Finland, Top Chef Suomi is produced by Solar Television Oy and broadcasted by MTV3 and Sub. Both, MTV3 and Sub, are commercial television channels and belong to MTV Media, which is owned by Bonnier AB. There have been three Top Chef Suomi seasons, and the third one was aired on MTV3 between February 2013 and April 2013. As was described in more detail in section 1.1 of this thesis, the main idea of Top Chef is that a group of experienced chefs compete against each other for the title of ‘top chef’. Each week one chef is eliminated based on the dish they prepare in that week’s elimination challenge. Each episode has a certain theme and often a guest judge, whose specialty that episode’s theme is. 20 To give and overall idea of the very basic characteristics of the regular interlocutors of the material, I will next provide a brief description of the contestants of Top Chef Suomi. The programme had altogether 13 contestants from different parts of Finland, who work as professional chefs in different restaurants. Nine of the contestants are male and four female. They represent different age groups, the youngest contestant being 20 and the oldest 43 years old, and have different experiences from the field, both in Finland and abroad. Indeed, several of the contestants have worked or otherwise lived abroad, in such countries as Denmark, Italy and China. As mentioned before, one of the contestants is originally Mexican and speaks mainly English in Top Chef Suomi. (MTV Media 2013) In addition to the contestants, the regular cast of Top Chef Suomi consisted of three Finnish judges: Pipsa Hurmerinta, who was also the hostess of the show, the head judge Hans Välimäki, who is an acclaimed Finnish chef and the only Finnish chef ever to be awarded with the Michelin star, and a “foodie” Mikko Kosonen. There were usually one or two guest judges per episode, who on the third season of Top Chef Suomi were mainly Finnish-speaking, excluding one British and one Italian guest judge as well as a Swedish-speaking guest judge from Åland. 21 2 LANGUAGES FOR SPECIAL AND GENERAL PURPOSES In this chapter, I will focus on languages for special purposes. To give an overall idea of the phenomenon, languages for special purposes along with their main characteristics are presented in the beginning of this chapter. I will then further clarify the phenomenon by contrasting special languages with general languages. In the end of this chapter, I will move towards the material of the present study, the language of restaurant business, gastronomy, and professional chefs. 2.1 Languages for Special Purposes Most professions and sciences have their own register or at least a distinct terminology, which is characteristic to that subject field only. These registers have many names, such as jargons, sublanguages, restricted languages, and languages of science and technology. (Grabarczyk 1989: 180) Most linguists refer to them as “languages for special purposes” (henceforth also “LSP”) or special languages. Robert de Beaugrande (1989: 3) notes that both terms are quite problematic, since languages for special purposes do not meet the usual requirements of an actual language. Following Beaugrande’s (1989: 6–7) description, an LSP forms a complete set of linguistic phenomena but still overlaps with and relies on at least one language for general purposes (henceforth also “LGP”). In this sense, an LSP can be seen as a continuum of an LGP, without a clear division between them. Indeed, it has been suggested that instead of describing an LSP as a “language”, it should be referred to as a style or a certain register of an LGP. (ibid.) If languages for special purposes are not languages, what are they then? In short, an LSP is a specialised register of a profession or a hobby. An LSP can be defined as a compilation of all linguistic means used in a professionally limited sphere of human communication (Grabarczyk 1989: 180). Such is the case for example with the word ‘ace’ in the LSP of golf. It refers to the action of hitting the ball into the hole with one stroke, whereas an LGP word ‘ace’ can mean something extraordinary or one of the 22 cards in the deck of cards. Like golf, many other sports have their own fixed terminology, their unique LSP, as well. To be able to follow a baseball game, the viewer has to be aware of what it means when the umpire exclaims: “Ball!” The same goes for many professions. Let us take for example the word ‘baseline’: When a musician refers to ‘baseline’ and when a graphic designer adjusts the ‘baseline’ in their work, the meaning is completely different. Each special language entails the main concepts of its field, such as professional terminology or expressions characteristic to a certain profession or field of science. As Beaugrande (1989: 3 & 7) writes, becoming a member of a certain field of science or profession often requires learning the language variation, that is, the LSP of that niche. In other words, an LSP appears typically in a specific social framework with a limited group of users who have voluntarily learnt the LSP. As the tight relation of an LSP to a certain field suggests, special languages are highly purpose-oriented. They exist to serve a particular purpose, which is why it has been suggested that instead of “special languages”, linguists should refer to “special purpose languages”. Their function is often twofold: First and foremost, they aim to convey specific and unambiguous information that is not open to different interpretations. Second, sometimes the purpose of an LSP might be to encrypt specialized knowledge and hinder outsiders from getting access to the information of a certain subject field, thus giving more control to the professionals of the field, or to give the subject a more prestigious status. (Beaugrande 1989: 8 & 12) The former might be the case when an engineer writes instructions on how to build a certain machine: Without the reference to the exact type of screws and wiring, it is impossible for someone else to build that same machine following those instructions, since they cannot know exactly what kind of wiring should be used. The latter, hiding information with an LSP, is the case for example in many military jargons, whose purpose is to communicate within the team so that the enemy cannot understand them. Such is the case as well with many sports as demonstrated above: Not anyone can just walk on the golf course without at least some knowledge of the LSP of golf. When considering languages for special purposes and the Finnish language, the Finnish special purpose languages are inclined to often adopt their terminology from the LSP of 23 bigger language groups. Finland is a small country with approximately five million native speakers. Although the Finnish language has existed for thousands of years, for a long time it was only an oral language. Written Finnish was established by Mikael Agricola in mid-16 th century, but the language did not acquire an official status and a standardised written form until the late 19 th century. Therefore, Finland has throughout its history been dependant on foreign powers. That is apparent also in the Finnish language, which has always been keen on borrowing words from other languages. This can be seen in Finnish special purpose languages as well: the frequency of foreign- language items is higher in Finnish special purpose languages than in many other, bigger languages, and many terms and special concepts are borrowed from other languages’ LSP lexicons. (Batterbee 2002: 274) Traditionally there has been a strong tendency not to change the language of science to Finnish in Finland, which was caused by the small nation’s fear of not having their scientific achievements taken seriously abroad had they been written in an incomprehensible language (Pitkänen 2004: 253). Therefore, it is not surprising that many Finnish languages for special purposes are inherently inclined to switch the code from Finnish to other languages, which gradually, and due to frequent contact with the LGP, can result in established loan-words, or borrowings, in standard Finnish, or Finnish LGP. 2.2 Languages for Special Purposes and Languages for General Purposes In this section, I will take a closer look on how languages for special purposes (LSP) are related to languages for general purposes (LGP). As mentioned above, an LSP always relies on and is founded on some LGP. Also, as the use of an LSP term increases, it may be adopted into the LGP. Due to this intertwined relationship between the language variants, it is not always clear where one ends and another begins: the line between a special language and a general language is oftentimes blurred. Most languages for special purposes, however, share certain characteristics with each other, certain qualities that signal that the language variant in fact is a special language and not a general language. Let us take a look at these characteristics that help determine if a language variant is an LSP. Firstly, it is common for an LSP to rely heavily on terminology since 24 one of the main purposes of any LSP is to reach a high level of precision, conciseness, and unambiguity. This also results in a high frequency of nouns, which is why professional languages, especially in their written forms, have been said to have a nominal style. (Grabarczyk 1989: 181, 188) This can be seen, for example, when comparing a hypothetical weather forecast, an LSP sentence, “A steep decrease in temperature possible after sundown” with its LGP equivalent “The weather might get colder after sundown” – the former relies on nouns and the latter on verbs. Special purpose language is passive, general language active. Another main feature of any LSP is its own terminology. Whenever a special field starts to develop, it tends to form its own terminology. Special terms, the specialised vocabularies of specific professional or academic fields, are in the core of languages for special purposes, and understanding them is the key to learning a particular LSP. There are three main strategies to form the terms: First, to use an LGP word, second, to use words from other languages in their unchanged form, and finally, to form the terms within the field, that is, inventing new terms. (Grabarczyk 1989: 186–187) In food terminology, a borrowing from an LGP is the case for example with ‘fish finger’ (also ‘fish stick’ in American English, and in Finnish: kalapuikko ‘fish stick’), which are not the fingers of fishes but sticks the size of a human finger made of fish. Since new terms often come from the same culture as the new concepts and ideas they refer to (Pitkänen 2004: 254), many of the foreign-origin food terms in both, Finnish and English special languages of cooking, come from French and Italian. Such is the case with, for example, hors-d’œuvre ‘appetiser’ or gnocchi, which is a certain type of thick pasta ball that does not have a one-word equivalent either in English or in Finnish. There are many cooking LSP words that are invented within the field, but since everyone cooks at some point of their life, or at least hears or reads about cooking, such terms as ‘to bake’ do not really strike as LSP terms. However, ‘baking’ is originally a cooking term and the word was not used in the English LGP before it became a cooking term, nor was it actually borrowed to English from any other language. Instead, the word developed simultaneously in several Germanic languages sometime in the High Middle Ages. (Oxford English Dictionary 2013a) 25 An LSP terminology aims to serve any number of purposes. It structures the information and knowledge of the field; it communicates the information between the members of the field and, finally, it transfers the information from the LSP in one language to that of another (for example translating Finnish medical article into English). Moreover, terminologies formulate and condense the information of a specific subject field, putting the information in brief and concise form. (Galinski & Nedobity 1989: 469) An example of a very concise language-use in the gastronomic LSP is the language of recipes. BBC’s (2013) recipe for the classic French dessert, tarte tatin, lists the ingredients very concisely: “110g/4oz icing sugar”. The concise style continues in the actual cooking instructions, which consist of one imperative clause after another: “First, make the pastry. In a food processor, mix the flour, butter and icing sugar just until they resemble breadcrumbs. Add the egg yolks and, using the pulse button, mix until it comes together in a dough.” LSP terminologies may often be borrowed from other languages. Traditionally, and especially in the languages of medicine and legislation, terms are borrowed from Latin, such as ‘calcaneus’ for heel bone, and ancient Greek, for example ‘cardio’, when referring to heart-related medical issues. With smaller special language groups (such as Finnish languages for special purposes) and newer fields (such as the LSP of cooking and chefs), however, it is common to use words and expressions also from the dominant languages of that field, such as French and Italian in special purpose languages of cooking. It is common to lean towards the general lingua franca, English, as well and use words that belong to that language. (Grabarczyk 1989: 184) That explains why for example pork ribs prepared a certain way are often referred to as ‘ribs’ in various languages, including Finnish. In addition to using foreign-language words, another common way of forming LSP terms is by using onymous items, that is, proper nouns. These items are relatively frequent in LSP vocabularies and they, too, can be of foreign-language origin. In many cases, proper nouns turn into LSP terms without undergoing any morphological changes, such as ‘joule’, a unit of energy, which was named directly after its inventor James Prescott Joule. Proper nouns that originally refer to trademarks can turn into LSP 26 terms too, such as the pharmaceutical noun ‘Prozac’, which is a commercial name for one type of antidepressant fluoxetine, but which is often used as a general noun describing this type of antidepressants. Despite of their initial role as names, onymous units that turn into LSP terms convey specifically determined meaning, just like any other LSP term, and they refer to a certain concept, not the person, company, or product they were named after. (Gläser 1989: 110–111 & 113) Not unlike the transition from codeswitches to established loan-words (see part 3.6 of this thesis), LSP terms may enter the standard language, the LGP, too. One of the criterion, by which a term is determined an LSP term, is whether or not it is comprehensible to an LGP speaker who is unfamiliar with the LSP. In the situation, where an LSP term enters the LGP, thus becoming frequent and understandable for all LGP speakers, the level of specialization of that term tends to decrease and its semantic field broadens. (Grabarczyk 1989: 188) In the LSP of cooking, this has happened for example with ‘bologna/boloney/baloney’, which originally referred to a certain Italian sausage made in the city of Bologna, but then in the general language use first broadened to mean several types of sausages, after which it even turned into a slang word referring to ‘nonsense’. 2.3 LSP in the Restaurant Business In this section, I will move further towards the language of cooking and restaurant business. The material of this study is, after all, the language of professional chefs, so examining the general characteristics of the language of chefs will shed more light on the reasons why many food-related items often appear in a foreign-language form. Food is both global, in the sense that many cuisines are known in other countries due cultural contact, and strongly tied to different cultures. This can be seen in how different cultures speak of food-related matters – which food items are given a domestic name and what culinary vocabulary is borrowed from other languages. As the contact between different cultures is becoming more common, different foods have also travelled to 27 foreign lands from their original culture (although they often adapt to the local taste). An example of such is the Chinese food, which in Western countries is rather different from the food served in restaurants in China. Nowadays many food names are, thus, of foreign-origin: it is more common to call foods with their original, foreign-language names than to invent new names in the target culture and language. (Gerhardt 2013: 15 & 17) For example sushi is known as sushi all over the world, and not for example as ‘raw fish with rice’. The same goes for such words as pizza and guacamole. Cornelia Gerhardt (2013: 17) demonstrates that as the foreign-origin food terms become more frequent in the new culture, they become established and take on local phonetic and grammatical conventions. Such is the case for example with pizza, of which plural in English is ‘pizzas’ and not pizze as it would be, should the word behave according to the grammar of Italian. The situation is the same with the word ‘ribs’ in Finnish. It already is a plural, since it has the English plural morpheme ‘-s’ yet it often is given a Finnish plural -t in the Finnish use, making it, actually, a double-plural; ribsit. As suggested earlier, the most common way in which culinary terminology is formed, is by borrowing: The words travel with the food items they denote. As Gerhardt (2013: 17) writes, this is not a new phenomenon, which is evident for example with the word ‘coffee’. In most languages the word for coffee comes from the Turkish word kahveh, but the borrowing has occurred such a long time ago and the word has travelled through so many cultures and languages that the word’s origins are rarely noticed. For example in English, the word ‘coffee’ in its present form first appeared as early as in the 15th century (Oxford English Dictionary 2014b). In addition to foods travelling to other countries and languages, languages can travel to other countries and their food stocks as well. Thus, as Gerhardt (2013: 19) writes, in colonial encounters, the new and exotic plants and other food items were given a name more familiar to the Europeans, which is the case with ‘cashew apple’, the fruit-like part of a cashew tree. Other ways to form food terminology is by compounding words and with the use of toponyms (a name of a place) and eponyms (naming something after a person, era etcetera), which does not differ from the word formation in other languages for special purposes. Not unlike other LSP terms, food terms are sometimes named after a person, such as the Italian raw meat dish carpaccio that was named after the Venetian painter Vittore Carpaccio in the 28 1950s. (Gerhardt 2013: 16 & 19) An example of a food-related toponym is ‘Bolognese sauce’, which originally means ‘sauce from Bologna, Italy’. Nowadays, however, for most English speakers, and for Finnish speakers for that matter as well, it simply means a sauce with ground meat in it and few actually think of the reference to the Italian city Bologna. Gerhardt (2013: 17) continues that although food-related terminology is inherently keen on borrowing from other languages, the borrowing – and codeswitching – is notably more frequent in the language of professional chefs. It is, in fact, an inherent part of the LSP of restaurant business all over the world. According to Gerhardt (ibid.), calling food items by their original, foreign names, is one of the strategies, with which even the most common food items can be given a more prestigious status: the French word escargot looks much nicer in the menu of a London restaurant than its English equivalent ‘snail’. Sometimes the original denominator used to make a food item appear fancier may even be an invented one, as according to Gerhardt (ibid.) is the case with one of the best known Chinese dishes in the English-speaking world: ‘chop-suey’. Originally, ‘chop-suey’ is not a name of a dish, but Cantonese dialect for ‘mixed pieces’, which in the US has turned into a name of a dish. ‘Chop-suey’ is thought of sounding more interesting than a ‘bowl of pieces of mixed greens and meat’. French is often considered the language of finest cooking, and its prestigious status is visible not only in the language of chefs and cooks, but in the menus and restaurant names, in which case it is used also as a tool of advertising. This results in the high frequency of codeswitces in restaurant jargon: A diner in a New York restaurant might say to the wait staff that they would like to have “le salad and au gratin potatoes”. (Gerdhardt 2013: 43–44) The French language seems to have a similar status all over the world. As Serwe et al. (2013) discovered when studying the role of French in Singaporean restaurant names, in many Asian countries, French is often used in the names of restaurants to add an air of sophistication. This supports the more general notion that foreign languages are used in commercial contexts as adornment, to convey elegance and sophistication. In the restaurant business, French, along with other foreign languages such as Italian, Spanish and English, is used mainly for three reasons. First, 29 to actually indicate what type of food is being prepared or served, that is, using French words for French food. Second, foreign languages can be used symbolically, simply to give the food a higher status by for example calling sushi ‘le sushi’ although the food or the restaurant is not French. The third reason for using a foreign language is related to the symbolic motive – it is emblematic and metaphorical use of foreign languages, which means that in some areas only a highly educated elite knows foreign languages and those languages are being used for example in restaurant names or menus to attract this elite, to give the product a more prestigious status. (Serwe et al. 2013: 283–286) The phenomenon described in the previous paragraph is evident in Finland as well. The foreign-language items are clearly dependent on the level of prestige of the food. As Pirjo Hiidenmaa (2003: 78) notes, food-related words and food names that are close to the everyday life of the Finns, such as makaronilaatikko ‘macaroni casserole’ and kalakeitto ‘fish soup’, are likely to be referred to in their Finnish forms. Correspondingly, trendy foods, such as many fast foods and street foods, appear in an English-origin form (for example hot wingsit ‘hot wings’) and the most prestige food items in their French forms. This applies to brand names as well: popular Finnish rye bread brands have monolingual Finnish names Reissumies ‘a vagabond’ and Ruispalat ‘rye bits’, whereas the more luxurious products, such as the ice cream Classic and the cream cheese Crème Bonjour, are marketed using English and French even if the brand was originally Finnish. Hiidenmaa (ibid.) notes that using foreign-language items to reflect a certain status, playfulness, or atmospheres, even when Finnish equivalents could be used, is common with non-food related language use in Finland, as well: bleiseri ‘blazer’ could be called simply pikkutakki or jakku (although the latter is a derivative from ‘jacket’ too) and svetari ‘sweater’ could be replaced by villapaita. The LSP of cooking includes also other aspects than just vocabulary and food names. Many food-related text types, such as recipes, food articles, food blogs, restaurant reviews, and so forth, can be regarded as special purpose languages due to the frequent use of special vocabulary and syntax. For example the way professional chefs talk to each other in the kitchen (giving short orders and using many LSP terms) or how 30 sentences are structured in recipes (using short, imperative sentences with distinct verbs, such as ‘deglaze’) are both LSP features. (Diemer & Frobenius 2013: 58) When analysing the language of food blogs, Stefan Diemer and Maximiliane Frobenius (2013: 59) divide the English food LSP into the following categories: 1. Clear food jargon, such as the word ‘recipe’ in culinary context. 2. Ingredients. 3. Non-English terms. 4. Cooking tools, such as a ‘fillet knife’. 5. Preparation methods, such as ‘to bake’ or ‘to sauté’. 6. Amounts and measures, such as ‘a cup’. The presence of “non-English terms” as its own genre in the list above is interesting, since it suggests that codeswitching is a major part of the food LSP. The example of the sixth genre, ‘a cup’, is a good example of how an LSP and an LGP can be confused with each other: A cup is a strictly determined measurement in the cooking LSP, although it sounds like an LGP term, and for many non-English speakers, “adding half a cup of sugar” can sound confusing: “What kind of a cup?” According to Diemer and Frobenius (ibid.), the most frequent categories are ingredients and food types along with non-English food items, which are rarely translated or explained. Indeed, it requires a certain level of foreign-language knowledge or gastronomic expertise to be able to follow the LSP of food, even if the language is produced by a non-professional chef, as many food blogs are. The specialisation of the cooking LSP is constantly increasing. Diemer (2013: 151) has noted that many food-related discourses, such as recipes, food articles, or blogs, are constantly growing more specialised: The amount of LSP terms is increasing and more precise measuring or preparing methods are being introduced in food terminology. The amount of foreign-language items that are not explained or translated is increasing as well. Quite surprisingly, and much due to the spread of food blogs over the internet, the receivers of food LSP, are less and less professional. In other words, as the gastronomic 31 language is developing more specialised and professional, the users and receivers of that language are turning less professional. The development described above is visible in the Finnish cooking LSP as well, as more gastronomic and cooking dictionaries are being published. Kaarina Turtia’s (2009) seemingly monolingual Finnish Gastronomian sanakirja [Dictionary of Gastronomy] lists over 7.000 special terms that occur in the language of Finnish cooking and restaurant world. A brief glance at the dictionary shows that a vast portion of the words are foreign-language words, such as in brood (Turtia 2009: 193), which is Italian for ‘in a clear broth’, or œuf en cocotte (Turtia 2009: 382), which is French for an egg prepared in a small pot in an oven. Not all of the foreign words in Gastronomian sanakirja are French or Italian. There are several words, for example, from Spanish and Japanese, but also a notable amount of English terms, such as ‘lobster Newburg’ (Turtia 2009: 304) or even ‘pint’ (Turtia 2009: 429). In the introduction of the dictionary, Turtia (2009: 6–7) writes that although it is a Finnish dictionary, there are plenty of foreign words in it, since food is an international subject and not all food items, appliances or methods even have a Finnish equivalent. Turtia continues that especially the French and Italian terminology is relevant for the language of food due to historical factors, but as people travel more, they encounter foreign foods from other cultures as well. One of the reasons Turtia gives for including such a high amount of foreign language words in the dictionary, is that the Finns read a lot about food in other languages and import ingredients from abroad, and the recipes and ingredient listings are simply not available in Finnish. Another reason Turtia mentions for foreign terms is to correct the false forms that have found their way into the Finnish language. As an example of such false forms, she mentions barbeque, which should be ‘barbecue’. By listing foreign-language words, Turtia also aims to clear misunderstandings when translating foreign food terms, such as ‘corn syrup’, which, according to Turtia, is often falsely translated as something else than tärkkelyssiirappi. Comparing Gastronomian sanakirja with a monolingual English food dictionary, International Dictionary of Food and Cooking (1999), it seems that many of the foreign words are the same in both dictionaries. This suggests that the LSP in the restaurant business is international in the sense that it has adopted certain terms from various other languages. Although the local special purpose languages of 32 cooking rely on the local LGP, the specialized terminology seems to be multilingual. Switching between these languages, or codes, seems to be an integral part of the LSP in the restaurant business. 33 3 CODESWITCHING In this chapter, I start by defining codeswitching as a language contact phenomenon by presenting an array of codeswitching definitions and theories. As we proceed, codeswitching will be further elaborated by determining how switched items behave structurally. From there, I will move on to the unique features of codeswitching between Finnish and English and describe how the English-language items tend to be embedded into the Finnish language. After that, I will present the most pivotal codeswitching functions for this thesis: the transactional and social functions. Since codeswitching is not a language contact phenomenon that exists in isolation, it is worthwhile to take a look at its bordering phenomena in the end of this chapter. I will start with differentiating codeswitching from borrowing, a dilemma many scholars have attempted to solve, and a crucial definition to the selection of the material of this study. After I have determined what is meant by codeswitching and borrowing, I will conclude this chapter with a brief overview of more general language contact phenomena (attrition, convergence, and acquisition), of which codeswitching can be the first sign. I will also reflect on the current linguistic situation in Finland in the end of this chapter. 3.1 Codeswitching in General To explain the phenomenon at hand briefly, I will rely on Carol Eastman’s (1992: 16– 17) description of codeswitching as a language contact phenomenon where at least two codes, for example languages or registers, are used within one particular context, such as a conversation or a piece of written text. Codeswitching occurs often during a multilingual setting and it can involve single lexical items or complete phrases. The extent of codeswitching, thus, spans from one word (or a part of a word) switches to switches that can affect several sentences. (Eastman 1992: 16–17) Codeswitching is not necessarily the result of the lack of language proficiency, and quite often there are other factors that prompt the switch. In most cases, the choice of 34 language is free and other reasons than language proficiency, such as social factors, motivate the switch. It is, therefore, suggested that codeswitching cannot occur in the speech of a monolingual interlocutor. (Myers-Scotton 1997: 217) It should be noted, however, that even though codeswitchers must know both of the codes between which they switch, the extent to which they command the languages can still vary from knowing only a couple of words and phrases to the level of a native speaker (Halmari 1997: 21). Bear in mind that the extent to which the speaker has to command the languages between which the code is switched, is not a straightforward question. Quite contrary to the abovementioned, another school of thought emphasises that codeswitching is governed by both grammatical and pragmatic constraints, and the codeswitchers need pragmatic and grammatical competence in both languages. The said pragmatic competence refers to the ability to select the correct language according to external factors, such as the co-interlocutor or receiver of the message, the topic, or the situational context. Grammatical competence for its part means that switches follow specific grammatical constraints of all of the languages involved in codeswitching. (Köppe & Meisel 1995: 276–277) The linguistics settings in which codeswitching can occur, are discussed further in section 3.6 of this thesis, where the distinction between codeswitching and borrowing is determined. 3.2 Structures of Codeswitching There are several ways to define codeswitching based on how it appears in the context. Traditionally, linguists have divided codeswitching into intrasentential and intersentential switching, depending on whether the switching takes place within sentence boundaries or not (Myers-Scotton 1997: 222). An intrasentential switch, therefore, would be for example the title of this thesis, an actual utterance from the seventh episode of the third season of Top Chef Suomi: ...pihvi ja semmonen barbecue- henkinen Texas style -veto... ‘...a steak and like a barbecue sort of Texas style thing...’ (MTV Media 2013f). An intersentential switch would then be what the head judge of 35 Top Chef Suomi, Hans Välimäki, says in the beginning of the first episode of the programme: Cheers! Tervetuloa kilpailuun! ‘Cheers! Welcome to the competition!’ (MTV Media 2013c) According to Poplack et al. (1989: 389), intrasentential codeswitching, switching that occurs inside sentences, is the most discussed bilingual phenomenon among codeswitching scholars. This is because of certain problems the use of two languages in one sentence can cause, and because the division between intrasentential codeswitching and borrowing is not a clear one (see part 3.6). Some scholars prefer to separate codeswitching from codemixing, in which case the former refers to large changes in the whole speech-situation and large-unit, intersentential switches. The latter then refers to small-unit, intrasentential switches. However, many linguists do not agree with the treating of codeswitching and codemixing as separate phenomena and prefer to refer to them as intersentential and intrasentential switches. (Halmari 1997: 16–17) To avoid any unnecessary confusion caused by using several terms, the latter approach is applied in this thesis as well, and codeswitching is not separated from codemixing. One of the best-known codeswitching models is Carol Myers-Scotton’s (1992: 19, 22 & 28) matrix language frame model, which is useful especially when dealing with intrasentential codeswitching. In this model, the two languages, between which the switching occurs, are described as the matrix language and the embedded language. The former is the language which sets the “morphosyntactic frame for codeswitching utterances” and which can be identified by the relative frequency of morphemes. In other words, in a codeswitched utterance, matrix language is the language with more morphemes, the main language. Embedded language, for its part, can be seen as the donor language: it is the deviation from the matrix language. According to Myers-Scotton (1992: 28), the language constituents – such as case ending morphemes and prepositions, or pronunciation in spoken language – of a switched utterance come from the matrix language and therefore its morpheme order cannot be violated. The amount of embedded language morphemes may exceed the amount of matrix language morphemes, but only within embedded language islands, which will be 36 described in more detail below. The matrix language therefore is the dominant language of the communication act, and it receives codes from the embedded donor language. If we look at the sentence from which the title of this thesis comes from in its entirety, it seems pretty obvious that Finnish is the matrix language and English the embedded language: Totta kai kun oltiin Jenkki-teemalla, ni kyl nyt pitää pihvi ja semmonen barbecue-henkinen Texas style -veto olla päällä. ‘Of course since we had a Yankee theme, we will need a steak and like a barbecue sort of Texas style thing.’ (MTV Media 2013f). In this sentence, Finnish is the language that provides most of the morphemes, whereas English is the language that donates a few items: ‘barbecue’ and Texas style’. In Myers-Scotton’s matrix language frame model, codeswitching utterances are put into three categories: 1) matrix language and embedded language constituents, 2) matrix language islands and 3) embedded language islands. Matrix language and embedded language constituents consist of matrix language morphemes and embedded language forms, which are often single lexical items. It is this short type of codeswitching that can be difficult to separate from borrowing, since the embedded language part is often a single-lexeme, one word. The matrix language islands consist only of matrix language morphemes, are well-formed according to the matrix language grammar, and must express internal structural dependency. The embedded language islands are composed only of embedded language morphemes, following embedded language grammar, and must show internal structural dependency. (Myers-Scotton 1992: 22–23) To get a better idea of how embedded language constituents and islands occur in practice, see section 4.1 of this thesis, where I will analyse the material following Myers-Scotton’s categories. 3.3 Integrating Foreign-Language Items Switching between codes is not necessarily something unexpected or surprising – it can be the normative way of speaking for the members of certain language communities, such as migrant or professional groups. When codeswitching occurs as the norm, it is the unmarked choice. When switches between codes are intentional and obvious, and 37 they function as the tools for the speaker to pursue some sort of social strength or differentiation, codeswitching is seen as the marked choice. (Eastman 1992: 1 & 17) One of the ways a codeswitch can be marked is by flagging, which is very typical for Finnish-English codeswitching, although it can occur in monolingual speech or text as well. According to Poplack et al. (1989: 394), flagging in spoken, and sometimes also in written language, means the occurrence of a determiner-like element that somehow highlights the following, usually foreign-language, utterance. Examples of such flags in the Finnish language are the words tällainen, ‘like this’, and niinkuin, ‘like’. In spoken language, also non-verbal signifiers, such as hesitation, stuttering, or drawing quotation marks in the air with one’s fingers, may be used to flag the switch. 3.4 Integrating English into Finnish There are some unique characteristics when it comes to switching between Finnish and English and integrating the English language items into the Finnish matrix language. First of all, as a non-Indo-European language, Finnish is structurally and grammatically very different from English, which inevitably affects how the English language items are embedded into Finnish and vice versa. As Helena Halmari demonstrates in her study Government and Codeswitching – Explaining American Finnish (1997: 6, 33 & 182–183), in spoken language, one of the clearest differences between Finnish and English is the pronunciation: In Finnish, the phonemes do not switch due to the sounds they are surrounded by as they do in English. Also, the stress in Finnish is always on the first syllable, whereas in English it varies. Structurally, the case and agreement system is much richer in Finnish than in English. In Finnish, the marking of grammatical relations relies heavily on inflectional morphology, and not on word order as it does in English. Finnish and English are very different phonologically, too: vowel harmony, the constraints that determine which vowels can occur near each other, is an essential part of the Finnish language and the amount of vowels is high. This partly explains why words of English origin often 38 acquire extra vowels when entering the Finnish matrix and why the vowel sounds in the English words can change when used within Finnish. Given the strictness of the Finnish morphology, it is more of a rule than an exception that when an English-origin item is used within the Finnish matrix language, some morphological adjustment will take place. As Finnish is rather intolerant towards words ending with a consonant – due to the inflection system of Finnish – a vowel needs to be added in the end of the word. Words ending with a vowel are then easier to inflect in the Finnish inflection system. When studying the language of the Finnish immigrants in Canada and the US, Maisa Martin (1993: 97–100) noticed that in most cases, the extra vowel added in the end of an English language word seems to be an i. In linguistic settings where both Finnish and English are used, it is noted that codeswitching occurs more often when Finnish is the matrix language and English the embedded language, and switching to Finnish when English is the matrix language is less frequent (Halmari 1997: 54–55). According to Halmari (1997: 99–100 & 110), there are structural and grammatical reasons for this. Part of the reason lies in the morphological differences between the languages: When Finnish is the matrix language, the English-language item needs to be “tied” into the Finnish system with the use of morphemes. This makes it easy to use English items within Finnish, whereas in the reverse situation, the lack of case endings in English makes it difficult for the speaker to add Finnish items into English as they would have to appear without any case endings – and this is not in line with the grammatical logic of Finnish speakers. Figure 1 on page 54 of this thesis illustrates how this was done by one of the interlocutors in Top Chef Suomi, who added an extra i in the end of ‘dinner’ to be able to plant the word into his speech. Halmari (ibid.) also notes that when switching the code between Finnish and English, nouns and noun phrases are clearly the part of speech that is switched the most. Also, adjectives and other noun modifiers, verbs and adverbs are switched, but not nearly to the same extent as nouns. 39 3.5 Functions of Codeswitching: Transactional and Social Codeswitching is a powerful socio-pragmatic strategy for interlocutors to construct social identity, and as Holmes and Stubbe (2004: 140) point out: “[…] especially for conveying some of the subtleties of the interaction between professional […] identity”. The ways in which codeswitching can function, and the motives for codeswitching, can be divided into two main categories: transactional and social switching. In short, the purpose of transactional switching is informative, whereas social switching seems to serve no unambiguous or “logical” purpose, other than subtle (yet complex) stylistic, affective, and social reasons. (Holmes & Stubbe 2004: 135) In other words, transactional switching is often prompted by need and social by choice. The purpose of transactional codeswitching is first and foremost to convey information and it therefore is a very practical form of codeswitching. The codeswitch may be the primary word the speaker has for that particular concept, or the speaker may try to ensure that the message remains as originally intended. Transactional switching, therefore, often functions as a tool to reduce the unambiguity of the information. Other transactional codeswitches are those that function to assist the addressee to acquire the primary code used in the situation to which the speaker is referring. (Holmes & Stubbe 2004: 135–136) This would occur especially in a situation where some special terminology, such as the terminology of a certain LSP, is available only in one language, although the matrix language of the conversation is some other language. Quite contrary to transactional codeswitching, social codeswitching serves no clear practical or informative purposes, but rather functions on the relational and interpersonal level of language. As Holmes and Stubbe (2004: 136) write, the purpose of social codeswitching is therefore to function as a tool for the speaker to construct for example their social, ethnic, professional or gender identity. Social codeswitching can also be used to emphasise the otherness of the interlocutors or the similarities they share. For example, an American immigrant in Finland who is fluent in Finnish may choose to emphasise his national identity by calling pankki a ‘bank’, even though he knows it is pankki in Finnish. Contrary, when this American’s Finnish friend talks to 40 him in Finnish, he may implant a few English expressions into his speech only to strengthen their rapport with the American. Holmes and Stubbe (2004:136) point out that a codeswitch is not always clearly just transactional or social, but all of its underlying motives are rather intertwined and subtle, in which situation a codeswitch can be transactional and social simultaneously. Despite of the occasional ambiguity of the distinction between transactional and social codeswitching, the two categories still provide a theoretically useful tool to describe different types of codeswitches. Given the abovementioned description of transactional and social codeswitching, it seems that transactional switching is more often unmarked (see part 3.3 of this thesis), whereas social switching is marked, since its purpose is not to fill a lexical gap or convey specific information, but to emphase social similarities or differences. Social switching is therefore more likely to be flagged than transactional switching. Codeswitching has also been categorized on the basis of the impact it has on the situation or how the situation triggers the switch: Situational switching occurs when the switch is caused by a change in the situation, whereas switching that in itself entails some kind of a comment on the situation is referred to as metaphorical switching. (Milroy & Muysken 1995: 9) The latter could, then, be thought of as social switch, whereas the former is more likely to be a transactional switch. 3.6 Codeswitching or Borrowing? Borrowing is a language contact phenomenon closely related to codeswitching. Both phenomena belong to the linguistic continuum, in which codeswitching of certain expressions or words turn from a marked, evident deviation, into an unmarked, normative switching (something not unlike an ad hoc borrowing). Once the switching becomes more frequent, it is the normative way to refer to some specific concepts or ideas, and can then gradually turn into a borrowing and finally an established loan- 41 word. Codeswitching, indeed, can be seen as the “seed” of a borrowing, and many borrowings are initially in fact codeswitches before they gradually become established enough to be accepted as a part of the matrix language lexicon. (Halmari 1997: 18–19) This, of course, concerns only those intrasentential switches that consist of only one or two lexical items. Problems in differentiating codeswitching from borrowing arise when the context is opaque or when the foreign-language item affects only a small part of the utterance. Indeed, codeswitches that consist of only one word or expression, the intrasentential switches (see part 3.2), form the type of codeswitching that borders on borrowing the most. At one point, it was even suggested by sociolinguistic scholars that intrasentential codeswitching cannot exist. (Halmari 1997: 10) For example, when investigating French-Dutch codeswitching in Brussels, Treffers-Daller (1992: 144) chose not to include one-word intrasentential switches in the study, since the line between borrowings and codeswitching seemed to be too arbitrary. However, many scholars (such as Poplack et al., 1989 and Halmari, 1997) clearly demonstrate that one-word switches can be separated from borrowings. In other words, not all single-lexeme foreign-language items used within another language can be treated as borrowings. To analyse intrasentential switches even further and to elaborate the relation between codeswitches and borrowings, Muysken (1995: 180) has divided intrasentential switches into alternations and insertions. As can be inferred from the terms Muysken uses, alternations are the switches that alter the codes, that is, languages. Insertions are switches where constituents of another language are inserted into the matrix language. According to Muysken (ibid.), insertions are the types of intrasentential switches that are closely related to borrowings and the “difference would simply be the size and type of element inserted, e.g. noun in borrowing vs noun phrase in code-switching”.2 2 Although interesting to the study of intrasentential switches, Muysken’s categorisations will not be used in this thesis due to the limited scope of the present study. I aim to give an overview of the phenomenon rather than concentrate this much on only one of the aspects of codeswitching. 42 Furthermore, codeswitching and borrowing are also related in the following manner: In both phenomena elements from one language are used within another language, and these elements serve the speaker’s communicational needs. Borrowing, however, differs from codeswitching in that it can also be used by monolinguals. Psycholinguistically speaking, a borrowed item has entered the mental lexicon of the matrix language, or the language X, whereas a codeswitch still belongs to the mental lexicon of the embedded language, or language Y. When the speaker uses an item from language Y within language X, and in doing so switches the code, they realize that it belongs to the lexicon of the other language. This is not the case with borrowing. (Myers-Scotton 1997: 228) When, for example, a Finnish speaker uses the word ‘radio’ in their speech, they most likely do not think that they are using a foreign-origin word, whereas a Finnish speaker referring to a film as a ‘blockbuster’ might – at least on some level – realise the word they are using is not Finnish. However, since it is not possible to determine each speakers’ mental lexicon in every situation where a foreign-language item occurs, more general descriptions of codeswitches and borrowings are needed. Attempting to provide codeswitching studies with more elaborated categorisations, Poplack et al. (1989: 392) have introduced the concept of nonce borrowings. They are not established loan-words but borrowings that are used due to some special need in the conversation or the conversational situation, and therefore they could be also called ad hoc borrowing. Unlike borrowings in general, nonce borrowings do not need to have some of the basic characteristics of borrowings, such as being recurrent and dispersed. It is this type of borrowing that is hardest to distinguish from codeswitching. Due to the vast overlapping of codeswitching and nonce borrowings, nonce borrowings will be treated as codeswitches in this thesis. Halmari (1997: 16–17) calls for a better distinction between codeswitching and borrowing, something more elaborated than borrowing being a monolingual phenomenon and codeswitching a multilingual one. One such distinction deals with the phonetic-morphological level of language. It suggests that a lexical item is a borrowing, not a codeswitch, if it is phonologically, morphologically and syntactically integrated into the host language. Given the great differences between Finnish and English 43 grammars (as explained in part 3.4 of this thesis) and the high demand of case endings in Finnish, much value, however, should not be put on morphological and syntactical assimilation when distinguishing codeswitches from borrowings: An English item is very likely to acquire a Finnish morpheme, usually one or more case endings, when it is embedded into the Finnish matrix language. This will not make it a borrowing and therefore the model, in which codeswitches are differentiated from borrowings due to the phonological, morphological and syntactic integration, does not apply to codeswitching between Finnish and English. (Halmari 1997: 177 & 188) It has, in fact, been noticed that not unlike borrowings, codeswitches can show some level of integration to the matrix language as well. When it comes to the language pair of Finnish and English, Halmari (1997: 47–48) suggests that it is the phonological integration that plays the key role, not so much the morphological or syntactic integration. Since Finnish is phonologically very different from English, it is easy to determine when an originally English lexical item has entered the phonological system of the Finnish language. Given the aforementioned difficulties in distinguishing single-word codeswitching from borrowing, it is not surprising that it is the investigator’s intuition that usually plays the biggest part in separating the two. Unsurprising, yet rather radical, then, is the suggestion by some scholars that the two phenomena should be looked at as basically the same phenomenon. (Halmari 1997: 170) This is in accordance with the aforementioned continuum, in which codeswitches can gradually turn into borrowings. The problem lies in the distinction of the two: There is a vast array of social, situational and grammatical factors that affects the status of the foreign word, and so in some cases it is impossible to determine whether a word has already turned from a codeswitch into a borrowing. Treating borrowing and codeswitching as the same phenomenon is also problematic, since it would mean including all borrowed words in any codeswitching study, and as was mentioned in the introduction of this thesis: in English, it would mean 75 per cent of the lexicon. Since it is not possible in this thesis to determine in each situation whether an English language item belongs to the English mental lexicon of the speaker or not, and since 44 Halmari has clearly demonstrated that one-word switches between Finnish and English that are to an extent integrated into the Finnish matrix language can exist, dictionaries will be used to determine whether an English language item is a codeswitch or a borrowing (as demonstrated in part 1.2 of this thesis). Therefore all such switches from Finnish to English that are not established enough to appear in a monolingual Finnish dictionary, will be considered codeswitches and included in the material of this study, even if they are not unheard of in different Finnish dialects, slangs or special languages. English-origin items that can be found in Finnish dictionaries are considered as borrowings and excluded from the material of this study. 3.7 Language Attrition, Convergence, Acquisition and Death, and the Linguistic Situation in Contemporary Finland There are a few language contact phenomena that are tightly related to codeswitching and may be the result of codeswitching, or vice versa, codeswitching may be the first sign of them. Therefore it is worthwhile to briefly introduce language attrition, language convergence, language acquisition, and finally the death of language here. In a sense, they form a parallel continuum with the borrowings: a codeswitch can gradually turn into a borrowing, thus being fully adopted by the matrix language, or it can result in language attrition, which might over the course of time lead even to the death of the language(s). Language attrition is one of the bilingual speech forms that borders, and in some occasion overlaps, codeswitching. In language attrition, a bilingual speaker is in the process of losing their ability to produce grammatical frames or lexemes in one or both of the languages. The clearest differences between codeswitching and language attrition are that as language attrition advances, the speaker may use parts of grammatical frame from one language and parts from the other, which, according to Myers-Scotton (1997: 225) and the Matrix Language Frame model, is not possible in codeswitching. Also, producing bilingual speech may not be the goal of a speaker with language attrition, as 45 it often is for codeswitchers, but rather a necessity: the choice to switch the code is not a free one, it is caused by a real need to fill lexical gaps. (Myers-Scotton 1997: 225) Convergence is another language contact phenomenon closely related to the ones mentioned above, language attrition and codeswitching. Under language convergence, all morphemes come from one language and there is an apparent rearrangement in how one language is produced grammatically under the influence of another language. (Myers-Scotton 1997: 229) That is, speech affected by language convergence is monolingual, but its structures are affected by another language. An example of this could be the use of sä ‘you (colloquial)’ as the passive voice in Finnish, which is a structure foreign to Finnish and adopted from English. Another example is the increasing use of English-origin calques 3 , such as uutissyöte ‘news feed’ or olla pähkinöinä ‘to go nuts’. Second language acquisition and language death are closely related to each other, since as the process of acquiring a new language in a bilingual environment progresses, so does the loss of the former language. Both of the processes are slow and occur gradually. As a speaker is starting to lose their competency in a language, it usually affects the language structures first: loss of register and language forms related to them is the first level of language death. As the process advances, lexical, phonological, morphological and syntactical losses usually follow. (Grinevald Craig 1997: 260–264) The current linguistic situation in Finland is not an easy one to define: More people command a decent level of English, and the role of Finnish in Finland is not such a strong one as it was a century ago. As Hiidenmaa (2003: 85) states, all research produced in Finland in the 21st century is not in Finnish anymore (in fact, most academic research is published in some other language than Finnish, most often in English) and more Finns than before live abroad at least some period of time. The language of Finns is not merely Finnish anymore: it is a combination of several languages, Finnish merely being one of them. 3 Also known as “loan translations”, a phenomenon where a term is translated “word-for-word” to create a form peculiar to the target language. 46 Is the linguistic situation in Finland language attrition or convergence then? Hiidenmaa (2003: 91–92) is optimistic enough to imply that this is not the situation: the Finns are moving towards some level of Finnish-English bilingualism, which is evident in the use of both languages concurrently. As a concrete example of this, Hiidenmaa (ibid.) states that the Holiday season advertisement slogan “Meri Christmas” of a Finnish cruise company would not have made any sense should the receivers of the message not be fluent enough in both English and Finnish to understand the wordplay (the first word of the English greeting ‘Merry Christmas’ has been replaced by the Finnish word meri ‘sea’, which is pronounced almost like the English word ‘merry’). Also, as Finland pursues a more international status with the use of, say, English language restroom signs in restaurants and English language advertisements, the Finns also create borrowings and English language forms that, in fact, do not exist anywhere else. An example of one of such faux borrowings is the Finnish name for the polytechnic degree for bachelor of business administration: tradenomi. The word is derived from the English word ‘trade’, but it does not really mean anything, it is “Finnish English”. (Hiidenmaa 2003: 77) All this, according to Hiidenmaa (ibid.) is a sign of the Finns’ multilingualism. Despite of her optimism towards the co-existence of Finnish and English in contemporary Finland, Hiidenmaa (2003: 58–63) admits that we live in times when small languages all over the world are dying or have died already. The reason for this, according to Hiidenmaa (ibid.), is not the presence of another, dominant language, or that people do not learn the proper grammar. Even the small amount of native speakers rarely causes a language to die, if those people are given the chance to use their language actively. Hiidenmaa (ibid.) states that languages die due to the changes in economy, which have caused certain languages to obtain an international status, and as a result of political decision-making. During the nationalistic wave in Europe in the 19 th century, many countries, such as Italy and Germany, determined one official language albeit there were several languages spoken within the borders of those countries. Hiidenmaa (74, 79, 83) also points out that education plays a crucial part in the survival of languages: In addition to teaching the actual languages, students of all fields should be given the possibility to learn about their field also in their mother tongue to ensure 47 the development of new special purpose languages. In Finland, for example, some university faculties require that the students write their theses in English, and in many cases most of the university level teaching is conducted in some other language than Finnish. Hiidenmaa (2003: 74) continues that when Finnish is not considered to be a globally important language by the Finns, and the prospects of a monolingual Finnish speaker are not really desirable, the attitudes towards the Finnish language turn negative and a proper command of Finnish is not such a merit it used to be. It is this kind of linguistic evolution that, according to Hiidenmaa (2003: 58–61), poses a real threat to any language: If the speakers no longer can use their language in different situations, the scope of the language starts to reduce. The increasing use of English in Finland is not such an immense threat to the Finnish language as the decreasing use of Finnish is. 48 4 CODESWITCHING AND LANGUAGE CONTACT IN TOP CHEF SUOMI In this chapter, I will analyse and categorise the 239 codeswitches found in the third season of Top Chef Suomi. I will divide this analysis by using these approaches: 1. The structure and integration of codeswitching 2. The markedness of the codeswitches 3. The function of the codeswitches 4. The situations in which the code was switched, and the interlocutors who switched the code In the first part of this analysis, the structures of codeswitching are evaluated mainly with the use of the matrix language frame model presented in chapter 3 of this study. I also took into account which lexical categories, that is, word classes, were switched and to what extent. Another point of view related to the structures and integration of the codeswitches was to focus on how the English-origin items were embedded into the primary language, Finnish. The second part of this analysis, the markedness of the codeswitches, refers to how, and if, the switches were made evident in the matrix language. In other words: if they were flagged or not, and whether switching from Finnish to English was clearly a marked or unmarked choice in Top Chef Suomi. The third part of this analysis, the functions of codeswitching, concentrates on the type of expressions switched, and analyses the extent to which the switched items were professional cooking terms, and if some of the switching functioned as a social codeswitching. The last approach concentrates on the parts of the programme and the actual codeswitchers, that is, the context in which codeswitching emerged, and the interlocutors: the speakers who switched from Finnish to English. All codeswitches between Finnish and English found in the third season of Top Chef Suomi were categorised using the following method: First, I determined whether a foreign-language item in fact was a codeswitch or some other language contact expression, such as a borrowing. This was done by using dictionaries: If a certain word or expression could be found in a general monolingual Finnish dictionary, namely 49 Terho Itkonen’s and Sari Maamies’ (2007) Uusi kieliopas, it was considered a borrowing and was, thus, excluded from the material of this study. If a word or expression could not be found in the Finnish dictionary, I considered it not belonging to the lexicon of Finnish and the word was, thus, counted as a codeswitch. The next step was to determine the origin of the switched item. Since I study codeswitching between Finnish and English, the origin of the word was in most cases English. There were, however, some terms that could be considered belonging to some other language as well, since they are borrowings in English, in which case monolingual English dictionaries, mainly the online version of Oxford English Dictionary, were used. If a word could be found in Oxford English Dictionary, I considered it to be English, even if its origins were to be in some other language. That being said, since the material deals mostly with food-related themes and the cooking vocabulary can be quite international (as demonstrated in section 2.3 of this thesis), such words that clearly belonged to some non-English language and culture, and followed the structure and/or pronunciation of some non-English language, were excluded from the material even if they were listed in Oxford English Dictionary. Such was the case for example with the Italian food name pizza puttanesca ‘a prostitute’s pizza’, which is globally known as a certain style pizza, but which follows the grammar, and in most cases, the pronunciation, of the Italian language. It could be argued that even though pizza puttanesca appears in a monolingual English dictionary, it in fact is not a borrowing in the English language but rather an established codeswitch. The third step was to evaluate what the matrix language and the embedded language of each conversation was and whether the switch was a matrix language island, embedded language island, or a matrix language or an embedded language constituent. Since the present study concentrates on the English- origin items and their behaviour within the Finnish matrix language, it comes as no surprise that mainly embedded language constituents and islands are analysed. Matrix language constituents play any significance for the aim of this study only if they are attached to the embedded language constituents. Then I analysed and categorised the functions of the switches as either transactional or social. I also noted whether the switch was triggered by an earlier switch in the conversation and whether it was flagged. I also paid attention to the interlocutor switching the code and the situation, in which the code was switched. 50 The main focus of this analysis was on the functions of codeswitching in the material: How many of the switches were transactional and how many social? Is transactional switching an essential part of the LSP of Finnish restaurant business? What is the purpose of the social, LGP, switches: Can they be considered as Finnish slang terms that are gradually turning from codeswitches into borrowings? 4.1 The Structure of Codeswitching in Top Chef Suomi Since this thesis concentrates on the language of the Finnish-speakers in Top Chef Suomi, and since Top Chef Suomi is a Finnish television programme, it goes without saying that the matrix language in the material was always Finnish. Similarly, since this thesis analyses codeswitching to English, the embedded language in all of the switches was English. That being said, there were still several sections in the ten episodes of the programme in which the matrix language was some other than Finnish, mainly English but sometimes also Swedish. The change of matrix language was caused by the presence of a non- Finnish speaking guest in episodes 5, 6, and 9, and also by the presence of an originally Mexican, non-Finnish speaking contestant in episodes from 1 to 5. The switching in the situations in which the matrix language was English or Swedish, was very limited and was caused clearly by the language proficiency of the interlocutors, such as in episode 5, where the contestants are visiting a bakery in Lahti with the head judge Hans Välimäki, who with the non-Finnish speaking owner of that bakery, Steven Bern, evaluates the contestants’ bread-baking skills: (2) Hans Välimäki, judge: What do you say about this dough? Steven Bern, guest judge: I would proof it longer but I know that maybe there is not enough time. Hans Välimäki, judge (turning to speak to the contestant): Hei, kuulit sä, mitä se sano? 51 Kira Weckman, contestant: Joo, et kohottaa vois vielä kauemmin, jos ois aikaa. (MTV Media 2013b) Hans Välimäki (to Steven Bern about one contestant’s dough): ‘What do you say about this dough?’ Steven Bern: ‘I would proof it longer but I know that maybe there is not enough time.’ Hans Välimäki (turning to speak to the contestant): ’Hey, did you hear what he said?’ Kira Weckman, contestant: ’Yeah, that it could be proofed for even longer if there were time.’ Example 2 above demonstrates an intersentential codeswitch in a situation, where the matrix language is English. The code then switches to the embedded language, Finnish, for purely transactional reasons: As Hans Välimäki turns to speak directly to Kira Weckman, who, unlike Steven Bern, speaks Finnish, he switches the code from English to Finnish. Most switches in situations where Finnish was not the matrix language functioned as in example 2. There were also some occasions, where the code switched from the non-Finnish matrix language (English or Swedish) to such languages as Italian or French, and these switches occurred only on the lexical level, as intrasentential switches, much like most of the switches from Finnish to English, and dealt with food- related terms. When it comes to the matrix language of Top Chef Suomi, it could be said that, in a broader scale, the matrix language is always Finnish, since the programme was a Finnish production and the majority of the speech heard in the programme was in Finnish. However, as demonstrated above, the matrix language occasionally changed to English or Swedish, which is a clear sign of the level of internationality in the field of cooking. The above-described situations, in which the matrix language briefly turns from Finnish to Swedish or English, form a special setting and a phenomenon different from the codeswitching of the Finnish chefs when they are speaking Finnish. Therefore, those situations were not included in the primary material of this thesis. They are, however, worth mentioning here, since that gives an idea of today’s Finnish reality television, as well as of the world the Finnish chefs live in, that is, a world that is multilingual and 52 very global. To an extent, this is likely to affect the language Finnish chefs in a Finnish reality television show produce. Only when the presence of a non-Finnish speaking interlocutor clearly caused a Finnish-speaker to switch the code from Finnish to English were the codeswitching included in this study. One of such situations occurred in episode 1 when the guest judge of that episode, Kari Aihinen, was interviewing the contestants as they were preparing that episode’s challenge dishes. Aihinen then addressed the originally Mexican contestant Eder Rodriguez in Finnish, to which Rodriguez started to respond in Finnish, but then switched the language in the middle of the sentence into English (most likely due to his limited competence in Finnish), which caused Aihinen’s following utterance to become quite a linguistic hybrid: (3) Kari Aihinen, guest judge: Mitä äijä aikoo laittaa tänään, pyörität lihapullat? Eder Rodriguez, contestant: Joo, mä tekee vähän lihapullat ja sit boiled egg inside. Kari Aihinen, guest judge: Boiled egg. Ai inside? Onks se siel nyt jo sisällä vai? Eder Rodriguez, contestant: Joo, joo, se on nyt sisällä. (MTV Media 2013c) Kari Aihinen, guest judge: ‘What are you going to make today, man, rolling meatballs?’ Eder Rodriguez, contestant: ‘Yes, I make some meat balls and then boiled egg inside.’ Kari Aihinen, guest judge: ’Boiled egg. Oh inside? Is it already there inside or?’ Eder Rodriguez, contestant: ‘Yeah, yeah, it is inside now.’ Unlike example 2 above, example 3 illustrates intrasentential codeswitching, in which embedded language constituents replace or function along with parts of the matrix language. Although the switching was most likely caused by Rodriguez’s lack of Finnish skills, it was still included in the material of this study, since it triggered the Finnish speaking Aihinen to switch codes, too, and since, unlike in example 2, the code did not switch clearly with the switch of the interlocutors. 53 4.1.1 Embedded Language Constituents and Embedded Language Islands Out of the 239 codeswitches that occurred when Finnish was the matrix language, a vast majority were embedded language constituents, that is, lexical items or parts of them that occurred within the matrix language. Altogether 191 switches were embedded language constituents, which mean 79.9% of the total of switches. There were, thus, 48 (20.1%) embedded language islands. In most of the switches that employed embedded language constituents, the switched part of the utterance was a single lexical item that often acquired matrix language morphemes, for example grammatical case endings of Finnish. An example of this is when chef Kari Aihinen, a guest in episode 10, welcomes the two finalists for a reward dinner in his restaurant: (4) Kari Aihinen, guest: Tervetuloa Savoyhin. Dinnerin jälkeen tulkaa ehdottomasti pyörimään tonne ylös, sit te näätte koko meidän ravintolasysteemin, et mä voin näyttää teille kattopuutarhan ja muuta. (MTV Media 2013d) ‘Welcome to Savoy. After the dinner, absolutely come hang around upstairs and you will see our whole restaurant system, so that I can show you the roof garden and such.’ The way in which Kari Aihinen embedded the English word ‘dinner’ into his speech is very common for all the Finnish speaking codeswitchers in the programme: The word is planted in the Finnish morphological system as if it was Finnish, by which I mean that it is inflected into speech following the grammatical rules of Finnish: the interlocutor adds the Finnish genitive case ending -n to the word, and since pronouncing “dinner’n” would interrupt the natural flow of speech, the interlocutor instinctively adds the extra vowel -i in between the switched item and the case ending, as illustrated in the Figure 1 below: 54 Figure 1. The embedding of the embedded language constituents into the matrix language Aihinen also pronounced the word in a Finnish way as ‘dɪnner’ instead of as dɪnə(r) as it would be pronounced in English. As pointed out in part 3.4 of this thesis, the vastly different pronunciation of Finnish and English is bound to cause the change in pronunciation of the English item, especially should the English item be given any Finnish morphemes, which then would have to be pronounced as Finnish. In fact, it is possible that if the embedded language constituent ‘dinner’ would not have to acquire the Finnish morphemes implemented by the Finnish grammar, the possibility of it being pronounced in its English form as dɪnə(r) would be higher, such as in a hypothetical utterance: Dinner oli maukas ‘The dinner was tasty’. Overall, the aforementioned phenomenon of making the foreign words sound like Finnish through pronunciation was rather rare, even if the switch occurred intrasententially and consisted of embedded language constituents. Out of the 239 switches, 180, that is, 75.3%, were pronounced according to the English pronunciation. This means that especially the nouns were pronounced as in English, for example ‘sweet’ was pronounced swiːt instead of swɛːt, which is how the word would be pronounced in Finnish. Since Finnish is phonetically quite different from English, some level of consonant misspelling was allowed (such as with the ‘r’ sounds), and the word would still be counted as pronounced in English – as long as it tried to imitate the original English pronunciation. All of the 59 cases, in which the pronunciation was clearly Finnish instead of English, were embedded language constituents as opposed to embedded language islands. That comes as no surprise, since embedded language islands cannot have any matrix language morphemes in the utterance (such as Finnish 55 case endings), and they therefore occur in isolation. That makes it easier for the speaker to pronounce the codeswitch in an English way, since the vastly different phonemes would not interrupt the flow of speech. In some cases, when the embedded language constituents already came with embedded language suffixes, no additional Finnish language morphemes or case endings were added. This is a clear sign of multilingualism: the interlocutor is familiar enough with the embedded language to recognize that it already has been transformed to the grammatical form their utterance requires. Such was the case for example in episode 2, when the head judge Hans Välimäki was wandering among the contestants in the Top Chef kitchen as the contestants were preparing various kinds of pork dishes. Välimäki then commented on the ham rolls one of the contestants was preparing and said: (5) Hans Välimäki, judge: Meillä päin sanottais, se on vähän semmonen slobby ehkä toi rulla, mutta… (MTV Media 2013a) ‘Where I come from, we would say that it is kind of slobby maybe that roll, but...’ Since the embedded language item ‘slob’ already has the English adjective suffix ‘-y’, the speaker seems to consider that as sufficient enough for the utterance and does not try to add the Finnish adjective case ending -inen, thus forming a sort of bilingual double- adjective slobbyinen. This kind of logic, however, does not seem to function with all of the English language items that are used with suffixes. The English plural suffix ‘-s’ is in almost all of the cases left unnoticed by the interlocutors, and plural nouns are given an additional Finnish plural case endings (in such cases that they emerge within Finnish language sentences and not in solitude as embedded language islands). That happens for example in episode 4, when one of the contestants is commenting on the challenge, in which they had to put up food stalls inside an ice hockey arena and serve certain dishes in them during the halftime: 56 (6) Teppo Säkkinen, contestant: Tommoses tilas fish and chipsit, onhan se totta kai haastava, koska ei voi tekee sitä eteenkään muuta ku oikeestaan ranskalaiset, et jos sä haluut et se kala on hyvää, ni mielellään sä teet sen siinä vaiheessa ku se tilataan. (MTV Media 2013e) ‘In a space like that, fish and chips, of course it is challenging, because beforehands you cannot do other than basically the chips, so that if you want the fish to be good, you would like to prepare it when it is ordered.’ In example 6, the embedded language constituents, even though already used with the English plural suffix ‘-s’, are given the Finnish plural ending -t. The term ‘fish and chips’ is used throughout the episode to describe the specific English dish. Therefore it functions almost as a proper noun, which might explain why the interlocutor does not pay attention to the fact that the embedded language item already is in its plural form, as was done in example 5. In example 6, the interlocutor might have excluded the Finnish case ending and just said Tommoses tilas fish and chips, onhan se... without altering the meaning or violating the Finnish grammar, especially since he paused for a moment after the codeswitch and started another clause. In some circumstances the use of Finnish case endings with the embedded language constituents that already have an embedded language suffix is understandable, since the Finnish inflection system requires it. In episode 4, when the hostess and one of the judges of the programme, Pipsa Hurmerinta, is briefing the contestants about that episode’s challenge, she again uses the English plural ‘fish and chips’, but adds the Finnish plural partitive case ending -ejä: (7) Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: Jokaisen joukkueen kojusta tulee löytyä hampurilaisia, fish and chipsejä ja joku vapaavalintainen annos. (MTV Media 2013e) ‘The stall of each team has to have hamburgers, fish and chips and some dish of your own choice.’ If Hurmerinta would have used ‘fish and chips’ without any additional Finnish suffixes, the utterance would have appeared as incomplete, thus underlining the switch of languages. The system through which the embedded language constituents enter the 57 matrix language, is not, however, coherent. Although in example 7, Pipsa Hurmerinta added the Finnish plural partitive case ending to the English plural noun, she does not do it in episode 7, when describing the consistency of a crab cake: (8) Kenneth Nars, guest judge: Ihan reilust sitä rapuaki siinä. Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: Oli, joo, oli sellasia kunnon niiku lumps, mikä oli ihanaa. (MTV Media 2013f) Kenneth Nars, guest judge: ’Plenty of that crab in it.’ Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: ‘Were, yeah, there were like real lumps, which was wonderful.’ Should Hurmerinta have followed the same strategy she used in example 7, instead of ‘lumps’, she would have said ‘lumpseja’. It should be noted, however, that example 7 took place in a briefing situation (see section 1.1 of this thesis for the categorisation of the different parts of the programme), whereas example 8 occurred within evaluation, a situation much more hectic and spontaneous than the scripted briefing. The situations, in which codes were changed, will be further analysed later in this chapter. It should be noted that other interlocutors, too, seemed to implement the embedded language constituents into the matrix language in an incoherent manner. As mentioned above, not always did the presence of embedded language suffixes or other morphemes result in the lack of Finnish case endings. With English plural forms, there seemed to be no clear pattern whether the switched item was treated as a faux singular or taken as a plural. Although in example 1 (section 1.2 of this thesis), the contestant Kira Weckman treats the word ‘ribs’ as a plural already, in other situations, when Weckman talks about her dish, she adds Finnish suffixes to the embedded language constituents. Let us now move from embedded language constituents to embedded language islands, that is, English utterances that occurred in isolation and were not attached to any matrix language morphemes. What is notable with the embedded language islands is that a majority of them seemed to serve no special purpose: there was no clear reason, such as 58 language proficiency of the interlocutors or a lack of equivalence in Finnish, that could be seen as the cause for the code to switch to English. Only 10 out of the 48 embedded language islands could be thought of functioning as transactional switches: as switches that were filling lexical caps or designed to adapt to the other interlocutor’s language proficiency. It is worth mentioning that since those linguistic situations in which Finnish was not the matrix language and which involved at least one non-Finnish speaker were excluded from the material of this study, the amount of those embedded language islands that served a transactional purpose was bound to be decreased. A bit over half (25) of the embedded language islands were catchphrase type interjections, such as ‘Let’s go!’, ‘Thanks!’, or ‘Oh my god!’ What is interesting with this type of switching is that it seems to serve no clear purpose: there often were no English-speakers, or non-Finnish speakers, present, when the interlocutors just decided to express themselves in English. Such is the case in episode 6 when the contestants were on the Åland Islands, and the head judge Hans Välimäki was briefing them about their challenge that involved the use of local potatoes. The only non-Finnish speaking contestant, Eder Rodriguez, was already eliminated in the previous episode and the whole preceding conversation was conducted completely in Finnish. However, something made Välimäki say: (9) Hans Välimäki, head judge: Tää on huolestuttava trendi, koska tota perunaa ei pidä jättää yksin, eikä sitä pidä unohtaa. I love potato! (MTV Media 2013g) ’This trend is alarming, because the potato should not be left alone and it should not be forgotten. I love potato!’ The way Välimäki uses English in example 9 was a very common way for the embedded language islands to occur in Top Chef Suomi: as catchphrases. The use of the structure “I love [X]” is very familiar to many Finns through media, music and films, and the way Välimäki says it, emphasising every word, is very dramatic and sounds almost as if he was quoting something. 59 Most of the embedded language islands that did not function as in example 9 were caused by the presence of a non-Finnish speaker, which made the Finnish speakers to switch between Finnish and English. They were clear switches of the language caused by the change of interclocutors, much like in example 2 on page 49 of this thesis. 4.1.2 Intersentential and Intrasentential Switching Since embedded language islands are usually intersentential switches, it comes as no surprise that most of the codeswitches in Top Chef Suomi appeared within sentence boundaries, thus being intrasentential switches. Out of the 239 switches, 206 were intrasentential and 33 intersentential, which means that 86.2% of the switching was intrasentential and 13.8% intersential. As can be concluded from these percentages, not all embedded language islands were intersentential. Some of them occurred within sentence boundaries, thus being intrasentential, such as in episode 4, when one of the contestants, Teppo Säkkinen explained to his fellow contestants that he wants to use a sweet and sour sauce instead of ketchup: (10) Teppo Säkkinen, contestant: Vähän niiku ketsupin sijaan... sweet and sour... (MTV Media 2013e) ’A little bit like instead of ketchup... sweet and sour...’ Unfortunately, due to the fast editing of the programme, it is unknown whether the utterance in example 10 continued, but whether it did or not, the switch is clearly an intrasentential embedded language island: the speaker pauses before and after it, thus separating it from the rest of the sentence, yet the mere ‘sweet and sour’ could not function as a sentence of its own, thus being an intersentential switch. 60 4.1.3 Lexical Categories of the Codeswitches As I noted in the section 2.2 of this thesis, most languages for special purposes function mainly on the level of terminology; terms are in the core of any LSP. Also, as I demonstrated in part 3.4 of the present study, nouns and noun phrases seem to be the most switched word classes in Finnish-English codeswitching. It is, therefore, not surprising that a clear majority, altogether 172 switches, 72%, of the switches in the third season of Top Chef Suomi were nouns and noun phrases. The second most switched lexical category (after complete clauses, that is, embedded language islands, which with the 21 cases formed 9% of the material) were adjectives with only 8% (20 switches) of the total switches. All of the English language adjectives used within the Finnish matrix language described either the quality of the food or, as was the case in episode 7 when the contestants formed two teams and established two restaurants, described the style of a restaurant: (11) Samuel Sorainen, guest judge: Mä ymmärsin, että teillä on amerikkalainen keittiö tai ravintola. Janne Juvonen, contestant: Joo, me vedetään semmonen vähän ranchy meininki. (MTV Media 2013f) Samuel Sorainen, guest judge: ’I understood that you have an American kitchen or restaurant.’ Janne Juvonen, contestant: ’Yes, we are going to have sort of a ranchy atmosphere.’ In example 11, the use of the English adjective ‘ranchy’ to describe a ranch-like atmosphere shows that the interlocutor understand how the English language functions and he then turns a noun into a somewhat rare adjective according to the English grammar. He then embeds the word into the matrix language without adding any Finnish case endings, showing that he recognizes it as an adjective. 61 Figure 2. The lexical categories the codeswitches occupied. Figure 2 above illustrates the vast superiority of nouns and noun phrases in the codeswitching from Finnish to English. It should be noted that “adjectives as parts of noun phrases” are still noun phrases, but they are separated in the figure because the switching affected only the adjective part, and the noun of that noun phrase was either in Finnish or omitted completely. An example of an English adjective being a part of an otherwise Finnish noun phrase can be found in episode 4, when the contestant Hanna Leinonen explains to the camera and her fellow contestants what she is doing at the moment: (12) Hanna Leinonen, contestant: Pistetään toi sweet chili -soosi tulemaan tosta. (MTV Media 2013e) ’Let’s get the sweet chilli sauce started.’ As was already mentioned in part 1.2 of this thesis, ‘sweet chili’ is a rather common term in Finnish cooking terminology (or LSP), but ‘sweet’ still is clearly an English language adjective and cannot be treated as a borrowing. The noun phrase as a whole is 62 treated like a matrix language term, even though it consists of embedded language constituents. It should be noted that soosi ‘sauce (colloquial)’ is not counted as a codeswitch from Finnish to English, since it can as well come from the Swedish word sås ‘sauce’. The perhaps surprisingly high frequency of adverbs (15 cases, 6.3%) is caused by the incessant use of ‘yes’ as a respond to various questions and orders by some of the interlocutors. There were also a few other types of adverbials, such as in episode 5 (MTV Media 2013b), when the head judge. after a conversation conducted in English with a non-Finnish speaking guest judge, turns to one of the contestants and utters the words Unfortunately tää on raaka ‘Unfortunately, this is raw’. The most common verb to be switched was fritata ‘to frit’, which appeared five times, thus forming 50% of the switched verbs. It basically is a fancier word for ‘frying’ that comes from French and is widely used in English as well. In Finnish, it could have been replaced with an established borrowing friteerata. Most of the other switched verbs referred to either a cooking technique, such as confata ‘to confit’ in episode 10 (MTV Media 2013d), or some specific gastronomic phenomenon, such as how a certain wine mätsää ‘matches’ with the food in episode 8 (MTV Media 2013h), in which the contestants had to prepare a dish to match the specific wine they were given. The relation between the wine and the flavours of the food were consistently referred to as a ‘match’. 4.2 The Markedness of the Codeswitches It is notable how fluently and instinctively the interlocutors switch between the codes in Top Chef Suomi: Only 28 (11.7%) out of the total 239 switches were flagged some way and thus made overt. In most cases the codeswitch did not cause any additional interruptions or items to appear in the utterance, in other words, it did not interrupt the flow of speech and the interlocutors did not emphasize most of the switches. 63 Within the 28 switches that were flagged, there were clearly three different ways to emphasise that the item used is from another language: First, emphasising the incoming English item with a seemingly useless filler word (such as niinkuin ‘like, sort of’ or semmoinen ‘such, that kind of’), second, hesitating or stuttering before the switch, and finally, translating or otherwise explaining the meaning of the switched item in the same utterance. The latter was the most common way of flagging the switch, and it occurred 12 times. Filler words were used 11 times, and in 5 cases the interlocutor clearly hesitated when using a foreign-language item. It should be noted that even though translating or explaining was the most common way of flagging, only 5% of all 239 switches were translated or somehow explained. This implies that codeswitching is clearly an unmarked choice for the interlocutors in Top Chef Suomi. In episode 7, when the judges are evaluating the food, the head judge Hans Välimäki incorporates all of the aforementioned flagging strategies in one utterance, thus making the switch to English very apparent: (13) Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: Tää on ihanaa. Hans Välimäki, head judge: Tää ei maistu miltään. Pipsa Hurmerinta: Must se oli oikein hyvää. Hans Välimäki: Tää on rasvanen ja tämmönen... greasy. (MTV Media 2013f) Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: ’This is lovely.’ Hans Välimäki, head judge: ’This tastes like nothing.’ Pipsa Hurmerinta: ’I found it very good.’ Hans Välimäki: ’This is greasy and this kind of… greasy. In the last utterance of example 13, Välimäki first uses the same adjective in Finnish that he is going to use later in English. He then goes on to underline the impending 64 switch to English with the use of a filler word tämmöinen ‘this kind of’, and finally pauses for a moment before describing the food with the English word ‘greasy’. Most of the translated switches were food terms and they were translated in a more underlining way than in the example above, usually with the use of the Finnish word eli. The word does not have an exact equivalent in English, but it would translate as something like ‘so called’, ‘aka’, ‘meaning’, or ‘that is’. It is peculiar why the interlocutors use English-origin items if they feel the need to then translate them. One of the reasons is that the situation prompts the switch: Most of those flagged codeswitches that were translated appeared in episode 7, in which the contestants formed two teams and set up two restaurants, a Russian restaurant and an American restaurant. The team members in the American restaurant referred to the foods they were preparing with the English names of the foods, since it was, after all, an American style restaurant. The fact that the restaurant was an American one made the use of English-origin items more explicit to the interlocutors, which then resulted in them translating the switches, even if they in other situations would use equally foreign lexical items without any hesitation or without feeling the need to translate the switches. In other words: Since the contestants were creating a restaurant that represented an English-language culture, codeswitching became the marked choice. That happened for example when the contestants in the American team were in the kitchen preparing their dishes and describing the process to the camera crew: (14) Janne Juvonen, contestant: Tehtiin tommonen versio crab cakestä, eli perinteinen jenkkirapuruoka, et tehään tuommonen niiku rapukakku. (MTV Media 2013f) ’We made that kind of a version of crab cake, which is a traditional Yankee crab dish, so we are making that kind of a like crab cake. Example 14 illustrates how the interlocutor flags the switch by translating the switched item, which he, in fact, does twice: in eli perinteinen jenkkirapuruoka ‘which is a traditional Yankee crab dish’, and in the end of the utterance, when saying tuommonen 65 niiku rapukakku ‘that kind of a like crab cake’. It should be noted that the utterance has three filler words (tommonen ‘that kind of’, tuommonen ‘that kind of’, and niiku ‘like’) preceding either the switched item or its Finnish translation, and is therefore heavily flagged. 4.3 Functions of the Codeswitches As Figure 3 below demonstrates, almost exactly half of the codeswitches found in Top Chef Suomi were non-professional (50.6%, 121 cases), and half, professional (49.4%, 118 cases). The level of professionalism was determined by the semantic meaning of the switched item: if the switched item could not be thought of being in any way related to food, cooking, or restaurant business, it was categorized as non-professional. The professional switches, that is, all the switches that did refer to food, cooking, or restaurant business, were also divided into two groups based on whether the switched item had an equivalent in Finnish or not. Those switches, which did have a Finnish equivalent but were still used in their English form, were categorized as professional and social switches (since switching did not seem to fill any lexical caps or serve as a tool to convey a specific meaning, but their motivation was somewhere else in the social factors), and the switches that clearly referred to some terms or ideas impossible to express as briefly in Finnish, were determined as professional and transactional. The amount of professional and social switches was the lowest of the three categories introduced above: only 40 switches (16.7%) were professional and social. The percentage of professional and transactional switches was 32.6% with the 78 cases. 66 Figure 3. The amount of professional and non-professional switches. Example 15 below shows a common way in which the interlocutors in Top Chef Suomi used social, non-professional codeswitches: the switched item was very often a colloquial utterance that had found its way to the Finnish slang through cinema, media, and/or music. In the situation, in which the contestant switched to English in example 15, he is speaking to the camera and telling what he felt when he drew the knife with porsas ‘pork’ written on it (in the challenge of that episode, the contestants drew knives from a knife block, and each knife had an ingredient written on it, determining what would be each contestant’s main ingredient in that challenge). On season two of Top Chef Suomi a year earlier, the same contestant was eliminated in the first episode for serving uncooked pork, and that is what he is referring to when saying: (15) Anssi Kantelinen, contestant: Yllättäen vetäsin sitten possun sieltä. Tuli pikku flashbacki siinä sitten edelliskauteen. Possu jäi tosiaan raa’aks sillo ja... (MTV Media 2013a) 67 ‘Surprisingly, I drew pork. I had a slight flashback to the previous season. Pork was left raw then and…’ The contestant is using the English word ‘flashback’ instead of a Finnish equivalent, such as takauma, or just saying for example: …mikä muistutti minua edelliskaudesta ‘…which reminded me of the previous season’. ‘Flashback’ cannot be found in standard monolingual Finnish dictionaries, and thus it is a clear codeswitch. It should be noted that the interlocutor “plants” the English-origin word to the matrix language by adding an extra -i to the end of the word, even though the Finnish grammar does not force him to inflect the word or add Finnish suffixes to it. The origin of ‘flashback’ is in the English cinematography term describing a scene, which is a return to a previous action in the film or in the plot (Oxford English Dictionary 2013d). The word is, thus, not related to the profession of the chefs and obviously could not be found in the gastronomic glossaries used in this study, so it clearly is not prompted by the interlocutor’s profession nor does it represent the LSP of restaurant business. As mentioned above, the word ‘flashback’, however, is not completely foreign to the Finnish language, since it, much like several other English words, can be heard in several Finnish slangs in different forms, such as fläshbäkki or fläsäri (Nixarn 2013). Due to the slang word status of ‘flashback’, the function of the switch is clearly social and stylistic: The 26 year old interlocutor is presenting himself as a young and urban person by choosing to use the English word. There is no obvious need for the English word, which excludes the possibility that the function would be transactional. It should be noted that the fact that the interlocutor is speaking in a television show might have prompted the use of the cinematographic term ‘flashback’, but it still would not explain why the interlocutor did not choose the corresponding Finnish term takauma, which also conveys the reference to narrative terminology. 68 A case in which the interlocutor uses an English food-related term for no obvious reason can be found for example in episode 3, when the guest judge Sami Tallberg and Pipsa Hurmerinta are evaluation the contestants’ dishes: (16) Sami Tallberg, guest judge: Legyymi, nätin näkönen. Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: Mmm, soup and salad. (MTV Media 2013i) Sami Tallberg, guest judge: ‘Legume, pretty looking.’ Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: ‘Mmm, soup and salad.’ The judges are evaluating a dish of the Finnish-speaking contestant Hanna Leinonen, so there is no obvious reason for the use of foreign-language items with such common words as ‘soup’ and ‘salad’. Interestingly enough, Hurmerinta also uses the English conjunction ‘and’, instead of the Finnish equivalent ja, thus treating the switched utterance as a set phrase and almost like an LSP term. ‘Soup and salad’ cannot, however, be found in the gastronomic glossaries, so it is not used to refer to a certain fixed term. One reason that may have prompted Hurmerinta’s English items is that the guest judge Sami Tallberg uses a rather foreign word legyymi in his utterance immediately preceding Hurmerinta’s switch. Legyymi comes probably from the Swedish language term legymsallad, which refers to a certain type of salad with certain ingredients. In English, however, ‘legym’ is something slightly different: instead of salad, it primarily refers to any kind of leguminous plants, such as peas and beans. The use of this kind of term might have triggered Hurmerinta to switch the code socially, thus trying to adapt to the utterance she found strange-sounding. Although very LGP-sounding, the term ‘slow food’ used in episode 9 is a clear example of a professional term and a codeswitch that serves a transactional purpose: In Finnish, hidas ruoka ‘slow food’ would only mean food that is somehow slow, whereas when used in its English form, ‘slow food’ is a very specific term, which refers to a style of cooking and dining born in Italy in 1986 as a counteraction to fast food and the opening 69 of the first McDonald’s restaurant on Rome’s probably most famous square Piazza di Spagna (Turtia 2009: 538). Therefore Tuomas Tarna’s utterance in episode 9 would not convey the same meaning should he not have switched the code from Finnish to English: (17) Tuomas Tarna, contestant: Esimerkiksi polentaa tehään yleensä yks päivä. Slow food […???] tulee alunperin Italiasta. (MTV Media 2013j) ‘For example polenta is usually made for a whole day. Slow food [...???] comes originally from Italy.’ The majority of the switches (58.6%, 140 cases) could be considered being affected by the situation or affecting the situation and changing it, thus being situational switches. There were two common ways how the switch of language was caused by the situation: First was that someone had used a foreign-language item before thus making it more likely for the succeeding interlocutors to switch the code as well. The second common way for the situation to prompt codeswitching was continuity: certain utterances were consistently used in their English form, which then caused everyone to refer to them in English. Such was the case in episode 4, where the contestants were divided into three teams to sell food from food stalls during an ice hockey game, and one of the dishes each team had to prepare was ‘fish and chips’. It was never called anything else but ‘fish and chips’ in the programme. Similar was the situation with the dessert ‘mud cake’ in the same episode, although it was occasionally used in its Finnish form mutakakku, which is a direct translation but also a common nominator for that exact dessert in Finnish, along with ‘mud cake’ (Turtia 2009: 358). (18) Olli Siren, guest judge: Mites harmaa joukkue, menikö mud cakejä paljon? Kira Weckman & Jenni Bergström, contestants: Kaikki. Olli Siren, guest judge: Kaikki meni? Mahtavaa. Se oli herkkua kyllä, täytyy myöntää. Mikko Kosonen, judge: Eikä euro toisaalta ei oo mud cakestä paha hinta. (MTV Media 2013e) 70 Olli Siren, guest judge: ‘How about the grey team, did you sell a lot of mud cakes?’ Kira Weckman & Jenni Bergström, contestants: ’All of them.’ Olli Siren, guest judge: ’You sold all of them? Awesome. It was delicious really, I have to give you that.’ Mikko Kosonen, judge: ’And a euro of a mud cake is not that bad when you think of it.’ In example 18 above, Siren’s use of the English term ‘mud cake’ instead of the Finnish mutakakku is most likely the reason why Kosonen also switches the code a few seconds later. These are the only occasions where ‘mud cake’ appeared in spoken language in its English form. It was once earlier referred to as mutakakku. It should be noted, however, that when the teams were working with the dishes in their food stalls, they had written menus for the customers, and in the menu of the grey team, the dessert was called ‘mud cake’. This is probably why Siren used the English word when evaluating the contestants in the judges’ panel later. 4.4 The Context of Codeswitching and the Codeswitchers Although Top Chef Suomi was highly edited and the conversational contexts were not linear but intertwined, and although the editing and the elimination of one contestant in each episode affect the airtime each interlocutor got, it is worthwhile to briefly analyse the contexts of codeswitching and the actual codeswitchers. As was already mentioned in the part 1.1 of this thesis, I had divided the parts of each episode into seven categories based on the conversational situations: testimonials, briefings, interviews, presentations, evaluations, feedbacks, and spontaneous conversations. Briefings and presentations were the most planned, and probably most practiced and pre-written, speech acts, whereas evaluations and spontaneous conversations seemed most improvised. Testimonials, interviews and feedbacks were 71 probably not scripted, but their level of formality increased due to the presence of some sort of an interviewer. Should codeswitching in Top Chef Suomi be only social, stylistic in nature, it would have probably appeared only within the more spontaneous conversations. This, however, is not the case: The cases of codeswitching were surprisingly evenly divided among the abovementioned seven categories as illustrated in figure 4 below. Figure 4. Codeswitches in the different conversational categories of the programme. It should be noted that as a rule, briefings and spontaneous conversations covered a much shorter section of each episode than for example feedbacks, which usually occupied the last 10 to 15 minutes of each episode, whereas testimonials could be heard throughout each episode, overlapping with the actual on-screen situations. Therefore the percentage of the codeswitches proportioned with the length of the categories would equalize the bars of figure 4 even further, excluding testimonials, during which the interlocutors did not switch the code more than 31 times, although testimonials were one of the categories that covered each episode the most. 72 Excluding a few exceptions, the percentage of professional codeswitches in the categories followed the overall percentage of professional switches in the material: As was mentioned in the subchapter 4.3 of this thesis, 49.4% of all the switches were professional in Top Chef Suomi. The percentage of professional switches was between 40% and 50% in all of the conversational categories except two: presentations and spontaneous conversations. Out of the 46 switches that occurred during presentations 4 , 34 were professional terms. That means that 74% of the codeswitching that occurred during presentations was professional. On the contrary, only 31% of the switches that occurred during spontaneous conversations were professional. There are two reasons for the high level of professional switches during presentations: First, in the presentations the contestants usually just listed the ingredients they had used in their dishes and briefly explained how they prepared the dish. Therefore the subject matter is strictly professional. This, however, does not explain why there were as many as 46 codeswitches, that means 19% of all of the switches, during presentations, which only covered a few minutes of each episode. That brings us to the second possible motive the interlocutor might have for switching the code during the presentations: the level of prestige. The interlocutors, who in the case of presentations are mainly contestants, want to impress the judges and appear as professionals, so they are inclined to use a term they think enjoys a more prestige status in the minds of the judges. That term very often is of foreign origin. This is evident also in the low frequency of transactional switches during presentations: only 39%. Therefore, even if 74% of the codeswitches during presentations were professional (referred to terms related to food, cooking, and restaurant business), most of them were used socially, prompted by stylistic motives, rather than transactionally. Correspondingly, the frequency of professional switching in spontaneous conversations (during which the contestants discussed mainly among themselves, that is, with their peers) is low, since the interlocutors are not trying to impress each other. It should be noted, however, that the presence of cameras and the contestants’ awareness of being in a television programme probably increased their need to aspire prestige language use in each of the conversational situations. 4 The situation in which the contestant brought their dish to the judges and explained what it consisted of. 73 When it comes to the context of the programme, the theme of each episode has a great effect on the frequency of codeswithcing and to the embedded language to which the code is switched. As can be interpreted from figure 5 below, switching to English was most common in the fourth episode, in which the contestants served fast food during the intermission of an ice hockey game. Such utterances as ‘fish and chips’ and ‘burger’ were frequent in that episode. Quite similarly, in episode 9 switching from Finnish to Italy was very frequent, but switching to English was rare. It should be noted that due to the presence of an Italian guest judge in episode 9, the matrix language was for the latter half of the show mainly English. This, however, did not prompt many switches from Finnish to English in situations, where the matrix language was Finnish. Figure 5. The amount of codeswitches from Finnish to English in each episode. It seems that in those episodes, in which the theme is tied to a non-English language culture (such as episodes 3, 6, and 9) switching to English decreases. Quite understandably, those episodes (4 and 7), which dealt with themes somehow related to either British or American cultures, seemed to have the highest frequency of English- origin utterances. 74 Since one contestant was eliminated in each episode (excluding episode 5, in which two contestants were eliminated), the time each individual contestant spoke in the programme, was very different. As figure 6 illustrates, this of course affected the frequency, with which they switched the code. Figure 6. The amount of codeswitches by each regular interlocutor in the programme. The number in brackets after the contestants’ names is the episode in which they were eliminated. As figure 6 illustrates, not all contestants switched the code according to how many episodes they managed to be in: Janne Juvonen (40 years of age) was eliminated in episode 7, yet he switched the code almost twice as often as Hanna Leinonen (20 years) and Tuomas Tarna (24 years), who were eliminated in later episodes. Notable is also the fact that Leinonen is the youngest contestant and Juvonen oldest (after Kimmo Lahti who was eliminated in the first episode). The winner, Kira Weckman (25 years), was the contestant to switch the code most, but as the winner she was also given the most airtime. It seems that age is not a significant factor when it comes to codeswitching in Top Chef Suomi. The interlocutor who switched the code most was the head judge Hans Välimäki, who used English items altogether 29 times. Given his status as the head judge and being the 75 judge to visit the contestants in the kitchen the most, Välimäki did spend more time in front of the camera than for example Mikko Kosonen. However, there was no notable difference between the airtime of the hostess and judge Pipsa Hurmerinta and Välimäki, yet the latter still switched the code more. Most of the recurrent interlocutors on the third season of Top Chef Suomi are professionals of restaurant business. The exceptions are Mikko Kosonen, who is a professional musician and described as a ‘foodie’ (a food lover) in the programme, and Pipsa Hurmerinta, who is a former model and a TV personality, and whose level of gastronomic professionalism is unknown: Hurmerinta has graduated from a cooking academy and published a recipe book, but it is unclear whether she has actually worked as a chef. The professionalism of the interlocutors was to an extent apparent in the way they switched the code between Finnish and English. Those contestants who switched the code more than a couple of times did so mainly with professional terms: For example in the case of Teppo Säkkinen, 19 out of his 22 switches, which means 86%, were professional utterances. With Hanna Leinonen the percentage of professional switches was 82%, with Tuomas Tarna 75%, and with Janne Juvonen 70%. Kira Weckman was an exception with only 13 professional switches out of the 28 cases (that is 46%). The unprofessional background of Mikko Kosonen was also visible in the functions of his switches, only 3 switches out of his total of 15 switches, were professional. With Pipsa Hurmerinta, a slight majority (55%) were professional switches. Hans Välimäki, who is an acclaimed chef with a vast experience from the field, surprisingly, switched professional utterances from Finnish to English only 11 times, which means that only 38% of his switches were caused by his profession. Example 19 below demonstrates what the rest of Välimäki’s, as well as most of Kosonen’s, switches (that is, non- professional and social switches) were like: (19) Mikko Kosonen, judge: Kurpitsansiemenet pääruoassa oli mulle semmonen turn off. Sitten tietenkin yhen komponentin puuttuminen jonku lautaselta on todella iso asia... 76 Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: Joo, joo. Hans Välimäki, judge: On se aika major, joo. (MTV Media 2013d) Mikko Kosonen, judge: ‘The pumpkin seeds in the entree were for me a sort of a turn off. Also of course the lack of one component from someone’s plate is a really big deal...’ Pipsa Hurmerinta, judge/hostess: ’Yeah, yeah.’ Hans Välimäki, judge: ’It is pretty major, yeah.’ Both of the switches in example 19 are social, serving a stylistic purpose. They are used in a way of slang words and it is very unlikely that the switches would be caused by the interlocutors’ profession or the theme of the programme. In general, it seems that codeswitching in Top Chef Suomi served two different purposes. First, it was prompted by an actual need caused by the international nature of the LSP of cooking and chefs. Second, it functioned as a social tool to emphasise the youthful and playful personality of the interlocutors. As certain English language expressions enter standard Finnish through cinema, media, and popular culture, it is regarded acceptable and even trendy to use these foreign expressions within Finnish. Switching from Finnish to English seems to be an unmarked choice for all of the interlocutors regardless of their age or gender. 77 5 CONCLUSIONS In this thesis, I studied the role of English and English-origin items in contemporary Finnish. The language variants analysed included standard general purpose Finnish, and the special purpose language of Finnish chefs. The material of this thesis consisted of the third season of the Finnish reality television programme Top Chef Suomi, which included 10 episodes. In my study, I concentrated on codeswitching since it is the first and most notable signal of the presence of foreign language items in spoken language. In addition to codeswitching theories, this thesis relied on the theories of languages for special purposes since, after all, the interlocutors of the material were all professional chefs and their language was thus the special language of chefs. Based on the main theories used in this study, all the English-origin items were collected from the television programme as they were heard, and then categorised as codeswitches between Finnish and English, and further, as transactional or social based on their functions. I also analysed how the English items behaved within the Finnish matrix, and who switched the code and in what kind of situations. I wanted to find out what kind of expressions – professional terms, slang phrases, idioms, proverbs – were switched to English and why. One of my central questions was whether or not codeswitching, in fact, is a characteristic of the Finnish special purpose language of the chefs. Based on the 239 cases of codeswitching found in the third season of Top Chef Suomi, the switching between Finnish and English clearly serves two purposes. The first one is to fill in lexical caps resulting from the international lexicon of the LSP of cooking. The terminology of the LSP of cooking is to a great extent same at least in Finnish and English, but probably also in other languages’ cooking LSP. Certain gastronomic words and utterances simply do not have an equivalent in the Finnish language and are thus used in a form adapted from the dominating lingua franca, English. The second purpose codeswitching in Top Chef Suomi serves is a social one. Certain expressions, terms, and utterances have entered the colloquial Finnish for example through media and popular culture. Therefore, to a native Finnish speaker who is heavily exposed to those influences, using the English forms of such expressions, terms, and utterances, may be as instinctive as using the Finnish equivalent. 78 As this study demonstrated, it indeed seems that codeswitching is a part of the LSP of the Finnish chefs as almost exactly half of the switches to English found in the material were professional terms. Half of the switches, however, had nothing to do with the profession of the interlocutors, which suggests that English expressions have a clear role in the informal language variant of Finnish. As it has been noted in this thesis, the terminology of cooking is international. That along with how different lexical items can be embedded into Finnish explains why a vast majority of the codeswitches were nouns and why most of switching occurred intrasententially, that is, within sentence boundaries. Terms tend to appear mainly in the form of nouns, and nouns form the easiest lexical category to be implanted in the Finnish language. Be it professional or non-professional, using English-language items within Finnish is not something peculiar for the Finnish chefs. It is the normative, unmarked way of speaking caused to an extent by the need to switch to English due to the LSP terminology and the presence of non-Finnish speakers, but also due to social reasons related to the construction of identity. The interlocutors clearly did not realise the amount of English items they used. Codeswitching was made apparent mainly in such settings where the speakers found themselves somehow surrounded by items from English-speaking cultures (such as when creating an American restaurant). It seems that certain food-related terms are adapted as they appear in the source language. This also affects the pre-existing terms to be used in a new, English-origin form, instead of the common Finnish form. This can happen unintentionally, when codeswitching triggers more codeswitching, or intentionally, when the motive is to increase the level of prestige of some items that would otherwise appear as too informal or banal. The use of foreign languages to describe even the most common of objects gives the object a sophisticated and somehow desirable feel. 79 Languages rarely exist in isolation and as the world grows smaller in the sense of globalisation, more and more languages come into contact with each other and affect each other. This can for example create new language hybrids, such as the LSP of Finnish chefs, or result in one language dominating others, absorbing them into it, which seems to be the case with the lingua franca status of English. What then happens to the smaller languages, those being dominated? In the light of this study, it seems that the small languages find ways to adapt to the prevailing linguistic situation. The dominated languages also absorb items from the dominant language, but still transform them to fit its own structural and phonetic systems. This creates multi-lingual speakers who with their complicated codeswitching manners show remarkable insight in several languages. No one can predict what happens in the course of 10, 50, or 100 years, but codeswitching, and other language contact phenomena connected to it, is a clear sign of the language changing. Languages, especially small languages like Finnish, have always been inclined to borrow from other languages, but the increasing level of codeswitching, the uncontrolled and often arbitrary ad hoc borrowing, indicates that the way in which for example Finnish borrows from other languages is not as coherent as it used to be. Will, for example, those codeswitches that were presented in this study eventually turn into borrowings or will they continue to occur randomly in the lexicon of some Finnish speakers but not others? That remains to be seen. It is likely that the professional codeswitching caused by the Finnish cooking LSP will (through shows like Top Chef Suomi) turn into more established switching, and eventually borrowing, in the standard LGP variant of Finnish, too, but the social non-professional switches are more unpredictable. It should be noted here, however, that since the material of this thesis was very limited, no vast generalisations can be made. This thesis only sheds some light on the role of English and the linguistic situation in contemporary Finland. Therefore, more research is needed, and from a variety of angles. In the future, it would be interesting on one hand to compare the level of English-language items in different Finnish special purpose languages, and on the other hand, study how English language is entering 80 colloquial Finnish, thus affecting the standard Finnish. These seem to be the two main ways in which English enters the Finnish language. More research is needed to determine whether these two ways are interrelated, thus completing each other, or if they are language contact phenomena that exist and function separately. Comparison of how the English language items have entered some other small languages, such as Estonian or Swedish, would be useful as well, since it would give an idea on how the role of English might evolve within Finnish. To evaluate what happens to the Finnish language and its structures when dominated by English, and thus to predict how the standard Finnish language might change as the English influences increase, studying the language of Finnish immigrants in English-speaking communities would be useful. 81 WORKS CITED Primary sources: MTV (2013a). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 2. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 12th February 2013. MTV (2013b). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 5. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 5th March 2013. MTV (2013c). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 1. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 9th April 2013. MTV (2013d). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 10. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 9th April 2013. MTV (2013e). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 4. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 26th February 2013. MTV (2013f). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 7. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 19th March 2013. MTV (2013g). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 6. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 12th March 2013. MTV (2013h). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 8. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 26th March 2013. MTV (2013i). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 3. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 19th February 2013. MTV (2013j). Top Chef Suomi. Episode 9. [Television Programme] MTV Media, aired 2nd April 2013. Secondary sources: Batterbee, Keith (2002). “Finnish.” English in Europe. Ed. Manfred Görlach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002: 261–276. BBC (2013).Food Recipes. Tarte Tatin. [Web address]. BBC, updated 2013, [Cited 19th December 2013]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/tartetatin_80584 82 Beaugrande, Robert de (1989). “Special Purpose Language as a Complex System. The Case of Linguistics.” Special Language. From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines. Eds. Christer Laurén & Marianne Nordman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1989: 3–29. Carmichael, Deborah A. (2010). “Foreword.” The Tube Has Spoken: Reality TV and History. Eds. Julie Anne Taddeo & Ken Dvorak. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2010: vii–viii. Chaîne des Rôtisseurs Finlande (2013). Juuret vievät keskiajan Ranskaan. [The Roots Trace Back to the Medieval France.] Chaîne des Rôtisseurs Finlande, updated 2013 [Cited 8th November 2013]. Available at: http://www.rotisseurs.fi/jarjesto/jarjeston-historia/ Diemer, Stefan (2013). “Recipes and Food Discourse in English – A Historical Menu.” Culinary Linguistics. The Chef’s Special. Eds. Cornelia Gerhardt, Maximiliane Frobenius & Susanne Ley. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co, 2013: 139–156. Diemer, Stefan & Maximiliane Frobenius(2013). “When Making a Pie, All Ingredients Must Be Chilled. Including You. Lexical, Syntactic and Interactive Features in Online Discourse – A Synchronic Study of Food Blogs.” Culinary Linguistics. The Chef’s Special. Eds. Cornelia Gerhardt, Maximiliane Frobenius & Susanne Ley. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co, 2013: 53–83. Eastman, Carol M. (1992). “Codeswitching as an Urban Language-Contact Phenomenon.” Codeswitching. Ed. Carol M. Eastman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1992: 1–17. Ellis, John (2007). TV FAQ: Uncommon Answers to Common Questions about TV. London: I.B. Tauris. Galinski, Christian & Wolfgang Nedobity (1989). “A Terminological Data Bank as a Management Tool.” Special Language. From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines. Eds. Christer Laurén & Marianne Nordman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1989: 468–478. Gerhardt, Cornelia (2013). “Food and Language – Language and Food.” Culinary Linguistics. The Chef’s Special. Eds. Cornelia Gerhardt, Maximiliane Frobenius & Susanne Ley. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co, 2013: 3–49. Gläser, Rosemarie (1989). “Onymic Units in LSP Vocabularies and Their Implications for Translation Theory, Terminography and LSP Onomastics.” Special Language. From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines. Eds. Christer Laurén & Marianne Nordman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1989: 110–118. 83 Grabarczyk, Zenon (1989). “Scientific Discourse against the Background of Standard Language.” Special Language. From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines. Eds. Christer Laurén & Marianne Nordman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1989: 180–189. Grinevald Craig, Colette (1997). “Language Contact and Language Degeneration.” The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Ed. Florian Coulmas. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1997: 257–270. Halmari, Helena (1997). Government and Codeswitching. Explaining American Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hiidenmaa, Pirjo (2003). Suomen kieli – who cares? [The Finnish Language – who cares?] Keuruu: Otava. Holmes, Janet & Maria Stubbe (2004). “Strategic Code-Switching in New Zealand Workplaces: Scaffolding, Solidarity and Identity Construction.” Multilingual Communication. Eds. Juliane House and Jochen Rehbein. Amsterdam. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004: 133–154. Itkonen, Terho and Sari Maamies (2007). Uusikieliopas. [New Language Guide.] Jyväskylä. Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy. Järvinen, Elina (2012). Meillä on kaunis kieli: Miksi emme pidä siitä parempaa huolta? [We Have a Beautiful Language: Why Are We Not Taking Better Care of It?] [Web Address.] Suomen Kuvalehti, updated 20th February 2012 [Cited 29th September 2013]. Available at: http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/meilla- on-kaunis-kieli-miksi-emme-pida-siita-parempaa-huolta Köppe, Regina & Jürgen M. Meisel (1995). “Code-Switching in Bilingual First Language Acquisition.” One Speaker, Two Languages. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-Switching. Eds. Lesley Milroy & Pieter Muysken. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995: 276–298. Leggott, James & Tobias Hochscherf (2010). “From the Kitchen to 10 Downing Street. Jamie’s School Dinners and the Politics of Reality Cooking.” The Tube Has Spoken: Reality TV and History. Eds. Julie Anne Taddeo & Ken Dvorak. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2010: 47–64. Leppänen, Sirpa, Tarja Nikula & Leila Kääntä (2008). Kolmas Kotimainen. Lähikuvia englannin käytöstä Suomessa.[The Third Domestic. Close-ups in the Usage of English in Finland.] Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. MTV Media (2013). Tässä ovat Top Chef -kilpailijat. [Here Are the Top Chef Contestants.] [Web address.] MTV Media, updated 4th January 2013 [Cited 22nd October 2013]. Available at: 84 http://www.mtv3.fi/ohjelmat.shtml/kotimaiset/top_chef/ kilpailijat/1684844/tassa-ovat-top-chef--kilpailijat Martin, Maisa (1993). “Muoto-opin seikkoja.” [Morphological Matters.] Amerikansuomi. [American Finnish.] Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 1993: 97–101. Muysken, Pieter (1995). “Code-Switching and Grammatical Theory.” One Speaker, Two Languages. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-Switching. Eds. Lesley Milroy & Pieter Muysken. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995: 177–198. Myers-Scotton, Carol (1992). “Comparing Codeswitching and Borrowing.” Codeswitching. Ed. Carol M. Eastman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1992: 19–39. Myers-Scotton, Carol (1993). Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon. Myers-Scotton, Carol (1997). “Codeswitching.” The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Ed. Florian Coulmas. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1997: 217–237. Nixarn (2013). Urbaani Sanakirja. Fläsäri. [Web address].Nixarn, updated 2013, [Cited 9thNovember 2013]. Available at: http://urbaanisanakirja.com/word/flasari/ Oxford English Dictionary (2013a). Bake. [Web address]. Oxford University Press, updated 2013, [Cited 19th December 2013]. Available at: http://www.oed.com.proxy.tritonia.fi/view/Entry/14759?rskey=GK9BDV&res ult=2&isAdvanced=false#eid Oxford English Dictionary (2013b). Burger. [Web address]. Oxford University Press, updated 2013, [Cited 9th November 2013]. Available at: http://www.oed.com.proxy.tritonia.fi/view/Entry/24927?isAdvanced=false&res ult=1&rskey=zdijvv& Oxford English Dictionary (2013c). Hamburger. [Web address]. Oxford University Press, updated 2013, [Cited 9th November 2013]. Available at: http://www.oed.com.proxy.tritonia.fi/view/Entry/83716#eid2251931 Oxford English Dictionary (2013d). Flashback. [Web address]. Oxford University Press, updated 2013, [Cited 9th November 2013]. Available at: http://www.oed.com.proxy.tritonia.fi/view/Entry/71139?isAdvanced=false&res ult=3&rskey=sM5vCb& Oxford English Dictionary (2014a). Pastrami. [Web address]. Oxford University Press, updated 2014, [Cited 10th March 2014]. Available at: 85 http://www.oed.com.proxy.tritonia.fi/view/Entry/138648?redirectedFrom=past rami#eid Oxford English Dictionary (2014b). Coffee. [Web address]. Oxford University Press, updated 2014, [Cited 10th March 2014]. Available at: http://www.oed.com.proxy.tritonia.fi/view/Entry/35784?rskey=fadHYE&result =1&isAdvanced=false#eid Phillipson, Robert (1993). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002: 261–276. Pitkänen, Katariina (2004). “Lainaamalla uudissanoja – käännöslainat kasvitieteen terminologiassa.” [Borrowing Neologisms – Calques in Botanical Terminology.] Erikoiskielet ja käännösteoria.VAKKI-symposiumi XXIV. Vaasa: University of Vaasa, 2004: 252–261. Poplack, Shana, Susan Wheeler & Anneli Westwood (1989). “Distinguishing Language Contact Phenomena: Evidence from Finnish-English Bilingualism.” World Englishes. 8: 3, 389–406. Serwe, Stefan Karl, Kenneth Keng Wee Ong & Jean François Ghesquière (2013). “’Bon Appétit, Lion City’: The Use of French in Naming Restaurants in Singapore.” Culinary Linguistics. The Chef’s Special. Eds. Cornelia Gerhardt, Maximiliane Frobenius & Susanne Ley. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co, 2013: 281–304 Statistics Finland (2013). Majority of Comprehensive School Pupils Study English. [Web address.] Statistics Finland, updated 24th May 2013 [Cited 30th September 2013]. Available at: http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/ ava/2012/02/ava_2012_02_ 2013-05-24_tie_001_en.html Taddeo, Julie Anne & Ken Dvorak (2010). “Introduction.” The Tube Has Spoken: Reality TV and History. Eds. Julie Anne Taddeo & Ken Dvorak. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2010: 1–8. Treffers-Daller, Jeanine (1992). “French-Dutch Codeswitching in Brussels: Social Factors Explaining Its Disappearance.” Codeswitching. Ed. Carol M. Eastman. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1992: 143–156. Turtia, Kaarina (2009). Gastronomian sanakirja. [Dictionary of Gastronomy.] Helsinki: Otava. Virtaranta, Pentti, Hannele Jönsson-Korhola, Maisa Martin & Maija Kainulainen (1993). Amerikansuomi. [American Finnish.] Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 86 Willmore, Alison (2013). Learning the Language of Reality Shows: The Producers of 'Brick City' Talk Revisiting Newark in 'Docu-Soap' Form for New Series 'Jersey Strong'. [Web Address.] Indiewire, updated 13th September 2013 [Cited 29th April 2014]. Available at: http://www.indiewire.com/article/television/jersey-strong-interview-marc- levin-mark-benjamin?page=1#articleHeaderPanel Winford, Donald (2003). An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.