Gardner-Chloros
Code-Switching
Chapter 4

1. Introduction

CS: a linguistic product of language contact, determined in various ways by the social circumstances in which it occurs

To what extent do the social circumstances affect the form which CS takes?

- there is evidence that typological factors influence the type of CS found at grammatical level

- no evidence that CS is constrained by the characteristics of the languages involved

- Le Page (1997): language is a game in which all the speakers can covertly propose and try out rules, and all the listeners are umpires

- certain kinds of CS are often found within certain language combinations/ social circumstances

What are the limits of these influences?

- systematic comparisons between CS :

1) same language-pairs in different sociolinguistic contexts

2) different language-pairs in similar situations

- three further sociolinguistic determinants:

1) conversational/pragmatic motivations

2) social psychological influences (Attitudes and CAT)

3) gender (Politeness Theory)

- each instance of CS requires a multilevel explanation (presentation in the book involves oversimplification)

2. Conversational/Pragmatic motivations

Myers-Scotton (1993):

"allocational" paradigm (social structures determine language behaviour)

vs. "interactional" paradigm (individuals make "rational choices" to achieve goals)

Milroy/Gordon (2003):

1) pragmatic use to exploit the symbolism/connotations of each code

2) pragmatic use to exploit the contrast of the two varieties

2.1. Using the external symbolism of the two codes

Gumperz (1982):

examples of both uses of CS (uses distinction between we-code/they-code)

range of resulting interpretations is much greater than one would expect (no simple dichotomy)

majority language is often linked to objectivization or depersonalization of the statement

symbolic associations of two codes are often exploited in advertisements

2.2. Code-switching as a discourse-structuring device

Goffmann (1979):

concept of footing is highly relevant in CS

Gumperz (1982)

CS as a "contextualization cue": interpretative framework for the referential content of a message

2.2.1. Markedness Theory and the Rational Choice Model

Myers-Scotton (1983): Markedness Model

In any given circumstance a particular variety is expected/"unmarked"/unremarkable one.

What do bilingual speakers gain by conducting a conversation in two languages?

drew on numerous theories (e.g. Politeness Theory)

presented bilingual speakers as "rational actors"

CS as unmarked choice where two sets of identities are normally indexed simultaneously

CS as "exploratory" choice

marked = "out-group"; unmarked = "in-group"

Li Wei (1998):

Markedness Theory: very influential model

emphasis is placed on the analyst's interpretation of participants' intentions (external values)

today emphasis is placed on the creation of meaning by participants within the conversation

2.2.2. Code-switching as "verbal action": Auer and Li Wei

Li Wei (2005)

criticizes "Rational Choice" Model

switches have a specific meaning which can be interpreted within the conversation (s.o., Wei 1998)

Gafaranga (2005)

CS has to be identified on a case-by-case basis

Meeuwis and Blommaert (1994; 1998)

it is not always possible to define the situation unambiguously

one needs to look at the actual linguistic practices in any given community to understand how the varieties are deployed

Giles and Coupland (1991)

speech depends on how speakers represent their characteristics and subjectively define the scene

Burt (2002)

various maxims within Myer-Scotton's model can be in conflict (e.g. Deference Maxim vs. Virtuosity)

Sachdev and Bourhis (2001)

CS also occurs in the absence of/in spite of a normative framework

Auer (1998)

CS is part of "verbal action": meaning can best be found at a level of conversational structure

conversational "moves"/sequential structures are important

patterns of convergence/divergence

Li Wei (1998)

also contrasts Myers-Scotton's analysis with the CA approach

focuses on speakers' procedures for arriving at local meanings

CS can be used to draw attention to a new conversational move

subjects' language choices reflect linguistic preferences and authority structures

CS complements or reinforces discourse structuring devices

CS to signify non-compliance (mismatch of linguistic preferences of younger and older generations)

2.3. Code-switching compared with monolingual conversational moves

2 assumptions:

1) code-switchers and monolinguals accomplish the same conversational function with different means

2) It is more likely that switches are functional than non-functional

code-switched and monolingual passages within the same conversation were compared

direct comparison of the way in which particular conversation effects are realized

CS is used for repetition without appearing rude or condescending ("downtoner")

CS is used to give speakers another "voice" to encode expressive meanings

CS to emphasize contrasting views/cohesion

although discourse functions achieved by CS can be performed mono-lingually, they are more salient when they are marked by CS

2.4. A Western view of "intentionality"?

Stroud (1992)

no domain, speech genre or topic is conducted exclusively in one language

criticizes the whole notion of "intentionality" (inappropriate, Western view of "personhood")

CS: rhetorical moves to highlight contrast/perceptual shifts

CS can provide different "voices" to one speaker (Bakhtinian notion of "voices")

critical of CA: unclear what is meant by "language as social action"

only a deeply ethnographic approach can get anywhere near understanding the "meaning" of CS

diversity of approaches CS has attracted: How can they be fitted together?

3. Accomodation, attitudes and audience design

lack of work on the social psychological aspects of CS (extremely relevant)

3.1. Accommodation and audience design

CS is a possibility to accommodate to the interlocutor's linguistic preferences

can serve as compromise between two varieties (different connotations; social meanings)

mismatch between levels of competence

compromise function is used in spontaneous speech as well as by politicians/ comedians/ media
(multilingual audience for multilingual functions)

CS as a prop to comprehension

Gumperz: another major function is "addressee specification" (smoothly addressing different interlocutors)
overlaps with accommodation

"flagged" switches: inserting a conversational marker or comment at the point of the switch

Lawson-Sako and Sachdev (1996; 2000)

object of their study is language choices

subjects converged most readily to the linguistic stereotype of in-group usage when the questioner looked as if they belonged to the in-group

accomodation is itself a very complex phenomenon; not found equally across all members of populations

3.2. Attitudes

many people show negative attitudes towards CS (pity, disgust, lack of education, bad manners, language inability)
although CS is often widely reported in a range of circumstances

the more educated the respondents, the less favourable their attitude towards CS

younger respondents saw it as more advantageous

CS is gradually gaining acceptability in many contexts (hybridity is increasingly tolerated, becomes fashionable)

much work remains to be done for a full understanding of attitudes to CS

negative attitudes are often at odds with the actual behaviour

attitudes to CS are learned rather than spontaneous (insecurity, feel threatened, indoctrinated to believe in "purity")

these negative attitudes can often be applied to the less developed areas

4.4. Gender

- considered one of the most important sociolinguistic categories

- ways in which it is studied have become more diversified

- CS cannot be correlated in any direct way with gender

- CS is woven in with female discourse strategies and discourse needs

4.1. Code-switching and gender in various communities

women use more standard forms than men in monolingual settings

sometimes the CS mode itself carries the "in-group" connotation ("local" type of speech)

Cheshire and Gardner-Chloros (1998)

no significant difference between men and women regarding the use of any kind of CS

Poplack (1980)

difference in amount (men more) and type of CS (men use more discourse marker) used by women and men

Winter and Pauwels (2000)

shift within gender studies from essentialist to constructionist view

gender as a dynamic construct; meaning varies in different domains (negotiated)

Swigart (1991)

women do not behave as a monolithic group

gender is no fixed, stable and universal category (no shared meaning within/across cultures)

one should relativize the usual pattern of sexual differentiation and look at the discourse context and the reasons why particular choices are made

particular linguistic forms do not always signal the same underlying motivations

4.2. Code-switching, gender and politeness

Gardner-Chloros and Finnis (2004)

Are certain specific functions of CS more common among women or men?

women and men are code-switching for different purposes

different cultures place emphasis on different values, which are moreover interpreted differently

Positive vs. Negative Politeness

difference in quality rather than quantity of politeness strategies (e.g. directness vs. indirectness, intimacy vs. distance)

in Western societies women are expected to be more polite and indirect than men

consequently, women code-switch more often when directness is required

functions of CS: humour, bonding (indicate identification, solidarity or intimacy), dampening directness

CS offers a powerful toolkit for women in order to not appear aggressive or unfeminine

general politeness function associated with CS

gender differences are contingent upon culturally determined norms
role of gender is relativized (gender is mediated by other factors, such as power relationships or conventions)

5. Conclusion

various social motivations for CS (e.g. desire to accommodate to one's interlocutor; expression of gender identification)

rarely a simple, one-to-one correspondence between the factors and the use of CS

Nilep (2006): CS is "the practice of individuals in particular discourse settings"

social structures, social identities and linguistic identities are constructed, accepted and rejected within the same conversation

role-taking is very subtle

varieties are manipulated by bilinguals in varied ways

nearly no limits how languages can be combined (borrowing at all levels)

individuals are limited by their knowledge and perception

struggle to demystify and systematize CS (e.g. Myers-Scotton)

constructed systems can be subverted or ignored

	Created by dorowisse over 9 years ago