Language contact can give rise to all kinds of linguistic phenomena: from bilingualism to the creation of new hybrid varieties (creoles, pidgins), from borrowing to code- switching, from language shift to language death. The present study is concerned with code-switching as an outcome of language contact and as a tool of social distinctiveness and identity construction towards the construction.10 Because of the vast amount of code-
switching research definitions for the concept have varied throughout the years, as well as theoretical approaches towards it analysis. One of the most accepted definitions was provided by John J. Gumperz (1982), who defined code-switching as ‘The juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems of subsystems.’ (p. 59). Code-switching can occur between turns in conversation, sometimes within an utterance in a single turn. Moreover, code- switching differs from other language contact phenomenon such as borrowing, in that code-switching requires knowledge of the grammaticality of languages involved; whereas, borrowing which may occur in the speech of people with a primary monolingual competence (Gumperz & Hernandez-Chavez, 1975). I approach my study of language variation adopting Gumperz’s definition, understanding that code-switching is a linguistic practice that involves the use of two or more languages within a same conversation. That is, code-switching can occur (1) between participants in single conversation (speaker A speakers in one code, speaker B switches to another), (2) within a single participant turn (inter-sententially), and (3) within a single utterance (intra- sententially) (Milroy and Muysken, 1995, p. 7). Others also make the distinction between intra-sentential, inter-sentential, and emblematic/extra-sentential code-switching, where
10 While some researchers have differentiated between what is known as “code-mixing” and what is referred to as “code-switching”, I will make use of the larger umbrella term “code-switching” to refer to the alternational strategies implemented across different types of bilingual communication. For some, code-mixing is referred to as switching that occurs within an utterance, whereas code-switching is between sentences (cf. Chen, 2008, p. 41). However, this modelling of bilingual speech will not be adopted in the present account.
intra-sentential switching describes switches that occur within a sentence, inter-sentential defines switches that occur between sentences, and tag-switching refers to the type of switching between an utterance, where a tag or interjection is attached to it (Poplack, 1980, p. 240).
Much of the bilingualism research today interprets code-switching as not synonymous to incompetence in either language. However, this perspective was quite prevalent in traditional bilingualism studies, primarily in generative studies, where the concept of a monolingual ‘native’ speaker was used as a point of reference to arrive at an understanding of bilingual proficiency (e.g. Bloomfield, 1927; Ronjat, 1913; Weinreich, 1953). Code-switching was viewed as an “aberration”, or deviating from the ‘ideal bilingual’ norm, i.e. one bilingual speaker with the competence of two ‘native’ monolinguals. Indeed, the notion of the ideal bilingual was present in Bloomfield’s (1927) account of inadequate use of speech in English-Menomini bilinguals. Uriel Weinreich (1953) defined the ideal bilingual as “someone who can switch from one language to another in appropriate speech situations but certainly not in an unchanged speech situation and within a single sentence.” (p.73-4).
A lot of research has surfaced since then that has challenged Weinrech’s statement, in particular Jan-Petter Blom and John J. Gumperz’s (1972) study of code- switching practices in Norway, which was one of the first to argue that code-switching was not a random nor inferior way of communicating, rather an interactional skill that could serve multiple discourse functions when implemented in interaction. John Gumperz (1982) created a framework in which he attempted to account for the multiple functions of code-switching, most notably the dichotomy between situational code- switching and metaphorical code-switching, which I will talk about in detail in the sections to follow. Additionally, Gumperz emphasized the social aspect of code- switching, particularly the importance of social relationships in interpreting the switches: “in order to interpret what he hears, the investigator must have some background knowledge of the local culture and of the processes that generate social meaning” (Blom and Gumperz, 1972, p. 434). In this way, language choice came to be seen as a potential symbolic tool to communicate desired social information (e.g. such as social identities, language ideologies), provide information on the structure and organization of the interaction, negotiate group memberships, as well as other socio-interactional functions.
Most researchers nowadays agree the following statements: (1) code-switching is not ‘random’ but an interactional skill that is rule-governed and orderly, and (2) bilinguals who code-switch do not do so because they lack competence in either language, or are “incompetent bilinguals”. In fact, extensive research in the area has found that most bilinguals do not code-switch unless appropriate, they first determine and interpret their interlocutor’s linguistic background, skills and social identities (Becker 1997), and this very act of interpreting interlocutors serves as a window to the language ideologies of speakers towards each code, and notions of who they think are “the appropriate speakers of a language or language variety” (Negron, 2014, p. 90). What is yet to be agreed upon among most researchers in the area is the exact nature of code-switching: what ultimately motivates a switch? Or, “Why do bilingual speakers switch from one language to another in conversational interaction?” (Wei, 1998, p. 157). In the following section I discuss the three of the most influential theories of code-switching today and I highlight their contributions to sociolinguistic theory and weaknesses. I then conclude with a discussion of my own adopted framework of code-switching.
2.7G
UMPERZS
ITUATIONAL/M
ETAPHORICALD
ISTINCTIONJohn J. Gumperz (Blom and Gumperz, 1972; Gumperz, 1982) pioneering work on bilingual communities marked a change in traditional studies of bilingualism. His framework was based on data from 10 years of research of different communities in India, Europe, and the United States. Prior to Gumperz’s study, most code-switching research viewed language alternation as a ‘random’ act associated with lack of competence in language. However, upon observing bilingual interactions involving code-switching, Gumperz realized that code-switching was a linguistic skill achievable through pragmatic competence and therefore “speakers communicate fluently, maintaining an even flow of talk” (Gumperz 1982, p. 59-06). He also noted that few if no hesitations were involved, no change in rhythm, pitch level and intonation, which could potentially indicate lack of competence in language use. Gumperz’s interactional framework demonstrated that code-switching was not a random phenomenon, but a legitimate interactional strategy, systematic and rule-governed, and subject to certain pragmatic and interactional constraints. Under his approach, code-switching is seen as part of the communicative repertoire of a bilingual speaker, and a skill that involves
pragmatic competence. Code-switching ultimately provides a set of discourse functions, or stylistic features, that can be strategically deployed in conversation to communicate social meaning.11
His framework proposed two functional strategies of code-switching, categorized as the following: (1) situational switching, and (2) metaphorical switching. These two categories have serve as the basis for many of code-switching studies to date. The first distinction, situational switching, refers to code-switching that occurs as the outcome to a change in the extra-linguistic environment; that is, a change outside the linguistic interaction. Situational changes can be a change in participants in a conversation (for instance, the presence of a non-speaker of one of the codes may trigger a switch to a particular language), or a shift in social settings (e.g. a change to an environment where one of the codes is not normally used). This latter situation is comparable to Fishman’s (1965) concept of ‘domains’, which views language variation as a reaction to different social settings and the behavioral norms pertaining to those settings. Most situational code-switching occurs at an inter-sentential level, or between utterances (Woolard, 2005, p. 75). Accordingly, those who study situational code-switching refer to code-switching as a type of “language choice” or “code selection” (ibid). The second distinction made by Gumperz, also known as ‘metaphorical code-switching’, accounts for variable language use that is not the outcome of a change in setting, rather, serves as a specific conversational strategy. In using code-switching as a conversational strategy, speakers allude to the indexical associations or meanings of the codes; in this way, metaphorical code-switching carries a semantic effect. Not only does it depend on the indexical associations of the codes in interaction, but it also depends on the indexical associations of the codes in a speaker’s consciousness. Metaphorical code-switching is also referred to as ‘conversational switches’ as its main function is to facilitate or enhance meaning in conversation.
One example of metaphorical code-switching is provided by Gumperz, when discussing a Spanish-speaking mother’s switch to English as metaphorical (Gumperz, 1982, p. 92). In the example below, the mother switched to English when she wished to communicate an authoritative and assertive stance in reprimanding her disobedient child.
11 This is comparable to monolingual speakers who can draw from their own linguistic repertoires (composed of dialectal features) and use specific linguistic features in interaction to achieve desired meaning.
In the case of many minority communities in the U.S., English carries authoritative implications; the mother was aware of these implications, and chose to exploit them when chastising her child.
(1) Ven aca. Ven aca. (Come here. Come here.) Come here, you. (Gumperz, 1982, p. 92).
Essential to metaphorical code-switching is Gumperz’s (1982) concept of the we/they code. The often-cited we/they code describes in-group and out-group language practices. Gumperz distinction was largely based on the concept of majority and minority communities: where the majority ‘standard’ language signaled values of formality, stiffness, and less-personal relations as the they code, and the minority vernacular language signaled familiarity and solidarity as the we code (Gumperz, 1982, p. 66). A classic example of we/they code in metaphorical codeswitching is the following: a banker and a costumer might conduct business in the majority out-group (‘standard’) language, meanwhile a friend might talk to another friend in the minority (‘informal’) in-group language. However, this distinction can be quite problematic when it comes to ascribing we/they code values, and there is uncertainty to whether a speaker is truly assigning these values, or whether the researcher is assuming them. Moreover, up to a certain extent this approach leaves no room for variation outside of this dichotomy and is slightly deterministic in practice. Its binary nature rejects the contemporary understanding of meaning in language as fluid and creative; rather, suggests that its meaning is static and predictable. The meaning of a switch, whether it be authoritative, comical, or intimate, depends on the local context; yet, for Gumperz, all of these meanings are made possible through the we/they code. The we/they code sees minority ethnic communities as the “prototype” bilingual communities (Woolard, 2005, p. 77), but this conceptualizing in itself is incredibly narrow and not applicable to other communities where multilingualism is the norm (e.g. Papua New Guinea or Indonesia). Further, the associations of the we code as being the minority code does not fit with Puerto Rico, where the we code is the majority code (Spanish), and the “they” code is the minority code (English).
While the we/they code has faced much criticism, others have built on Gumperz’s model and adapted it to modern understandings of language and identity. That is, instead of representing a binary minority community subject to a majority community
relationship, some linguists see the we/they distinction as a speaker’s variable positioning to multiple social entities (Woolard, 2005, p. 77), rather than literal binary values. Under this understanding, the we/they code demonstrates how speakers “can shift their own perspective from experience-near (“we” or first-person) to experience distant (“they” or third person) vantage points” or how speakers can accommodate or distance themselves to others (Woolard, 2005, p. 77).
Gumperz’s contribution to code-switching inspired much research in code- switching to come, and Gumperz played a key role in emphasizing the importance of the ‘social’ aspect in code-switching practices. He reminded researchers to become familiar with the macro-social norms12 (through we/they) and relations of the communities under
study: “in order to interpret what he hears, the investigator must have some background knowledge of the local culture and of the processes that generate social meaning” (Blom and Gumperz ,1972, p. 434). Additionally, he demonstrated that analyzing code- switching in terms of predetermined social categories and conversational contexts was an insufficient way of describing what was going in real time interactions, contrary to Fishman’s (1965) approach in domain theory. Rather, Gumperz saw code-switching as a stylistic strategy that could be implemented in interaction to serve a number of social and discursive strategies.
From Gumperz’s we know that switches can indicate a change in conversation topic or subject, they can be situational, and they may carry additional semantic meaning, as metaphorical switches.
2.8
D
ISCOURSEM
ODELS OFC
ODESWITCHINGSome discourse models of code-switching have raised objections towards Gumperz’s (1982) approach, particularly the classification of what counts as “metaphorical code- switching”. Some argue that his approach is too macro-sociological or that it “assumes than an ethnic contrast created by social structural arrangements is always relevant to speakers and invoked in conversational code-switching (Woolard, 2005, p. 78). Furthermore, meanings behind switches are not always metaphorical or based on macro- sociological ideologies. Code-switching, for instance, may also be used to create
12 Macro-social norms here include the knowledge of different social groups, status, roles, and social functions of particular codes.
interactional or discourse effects, the same way loudness and pitch do in phonology (ibid). Code-switching may be used to indicate a change in topic, to serve as an additional commentary to an ongoing conversation, to indicate a side comment slightly off topic, to indicate a change of in addressee (from a single addressee to multiple addresses), etc. Some of these examples, however, can be said to derive from Gumperz’s (1982) situational category, such as the change in topic or addressee. These switches can be made without invoking macro-sociological information of codes. Woolard (1995), for instance, provides the example of Catalan-Spanish code-switching in the speech of a radio presenter (p. 234-5). In the example below, the radio presenter is switching to indicate a punchline, for comedic effect, or to indicate a change in the narrator’s voice (Woolard, 2005, p. 79).
Creo que con las cronicas taurinas lo hara mucho major, digo yo, vamos, porque si no; Bueno! Allavorens moltissimes gracies a tota la gent maca… (I think he’ll do much better with the bullfight reports, that’s what I say, anyway, because if not, Well! So then, many thanks to all the beautiful people…) (Woolard, 1995, p. 234 – 5).
Conversational analytic research (cf. Auer, 1984; Gafaranga, 2000; Wei, 1995) also argues for a more local, interactional approach to code-switching. They argue for a model that takes into account the sequential organization of a conversation and the way code- switching is used to add structure and meaning to an interaction. Evidently, code- switching can serve as a malleable strategy for meaning-making, but it is incredibly difficult to describe a finite list of all of the discursive functions code-switching may serve in interaction. Rather than modeling code-switching off a list of possible interpretations, switches must be analysed first and foremost in interaction, against the backdrop of social context. It must be analysed for its discursive functions, semantic social meaning and overall usage across several contexts.
2.9
M
YERS-
S
COTTON’
SM
ARKEDNESSM
ODEL(T
HEORY OFR
ATIONALC
HOICE)
Carol Myers-Scotton (1993, 2001) has also been an influential voice in studies of code- switching. Following Gumperz situational/metaphorical categorization and we/they code, Myers-Scotton called for a reinterpretation of the role of macrosociological information and away from the idea of locally negotiated meaning. Both Woolard (2005)
and Auer (1984) have criticized Myers-Scotton’s approach for being “too macrosociological” (Woolard, 2005, p. 79).
Myers-Scotton model aimed to account for the instances of code-switching that did not fall under Gumperz’s dichotomy of metaphorical, such that her account would be more systematic and universal. She argued that any attempt to account for all the local, semantic strategies across interactions was futile. She came up with the concept of markedness model (MM) to emphasize the macro indexical values of codes in interaction, which she maintained was a more systematic and accurate way of explaining the social meaning of language use. In contrast to some of the Type 3 research of variation, Myers- Scotton avoids any statements of language use being locally negotiated in a single interaction, or as “the product of the individual interaction in which they occur” (Woolard, 2005, p. 79). Rather, the core of the markedness model is that a bilingual speaker has knowledge of, sometimes unconsciously, marked and unmarked values of codes, or a set of marked and unmarked rights and obligations; where marked values are those that are unexpected in interaction, and unmarked values are the ‘norm’ and expected medium in a specific context (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 89 - 90). Individuals can use these values stylistically to maximize their needs in interaction, thus they can “choose their codes based on the persona and/or relation with others which they wish to have in place” (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 75).
A key concept to MM is the idea of rights and obligations for each code (RO sets), that is, according to the markedness model there is a set of rights and obligations among participants depending on the situational context, and participants negotiate their positions according to these sets (Myers-Scotton, 2007, p. 98). Myers-Scotton’s model has been compared to Gumperz’s situational code-switching in that specific topic, setting or participant (a situation) influences the likelihood of a specific RO set, as opposed to a metaphorical or semantic motivation.
Her theory posits that interaction styles, or indexical knowledge and uses of marked and unmarked codes, are conventionalized in a community through repeated use, such that speakers acquire knowledge of a script or schema on how to interact in an unmarked and ‘accepted’ way (following the norm). In this way, choices in linguistic interactions are seen as “cognitively based calculations”, which rely on a speaker’s previous experiences on “what actions offer him/her the greatest utility” (ibid). Each code symbolizes a set of rights and obligations, and a speaker’s uptake or rejection of these is
indexical of the nature of a speaker’s interpersonal relationships (Myers-Scotton, 2007, p. 97). MM argues that at some level of awareness, consciously or unconsciously, speakers realise a link between the situation and the RO set.
Myers-Scotton’s code-switching approach is ultimately an approach towards rules of appropriateness and meaning in code-switching. Although Myers-Scotton’s approach seems to be more in par with other sociolinguistics research today on macro-