Code-switching, language ideologies and attitudes

In multilingual societies, language choice, use, and attitudes are intrinsically linked to language ideologies, relations of power, political arrangements, and speakers’ identities (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2003; 2004). Furthermore Pavlenko and Blackledge argue that identity options offered to individuals at a given moment in history are subject to shifting language ideologies that legitimise and value particular identities more than others. In this sub-section, I will address the issue of language ideologies and attitudes in relation to the act of code-switching.

For Woolard et al. (1998:37) ideology is “...not necessarily [a] conscious, deliberate or systematically organised thought or even thought at all; it is behaviour, practical, pre- reflective or structural”. In addition, she argues that ideology is a direct link to inhabitable positions of power – social, political, economic – and comprises the ideas, discourse, or signifying practices in the struggle to acquire or maintain power (Woolard et al. 1998: 7). Fairclough (2003:9) argues that ideologies are ‘…representations of aspects of the world which can be shown to contribute to establishing, maintaining and changing social relations of power, domination and exploitation’. Hodge & Kress (1993:6) on the other hand define ideology as a systematic body of ideas, organized from a particular point of view.

In my opinion there is a close affinity between these views on ideology. In other words the central idea developing from both assumptions is that speakers’ beliefs are rationally motivated by their perspectives of their existing relationship with the world, thereby influencing their relationships with other members of different social groups in particular contexts. These social relations may also be reflected by the subordination of these other groups and unfairness in power-sharing. Interestingly, these assumptions also imply that inevitably ideology is attached to the ongoing life of a society and it is a conscious phenomenon. What is more, ideological forms are structures of meaning (versions of

33 social relationships) that are inseparable from a set of practices that are themselves kinds of meaning (Hodge & Kress, 1993:210).

How does this understanding of ideology relate to, and find reflection in, language? According to Rumsey (1990), the term language ideology refers to “a shared body of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world, including cultural assumptions about language, the nature and purpose of communication”. In addition, language ideology is “...a mediating link between social forms, and forms of talk and ideologies are not about language alone. Rather they envision and enact ties of language to identity, to aesthetics, to morality, and to epistemology” (Woolard et al., 1998). Woolard et al. suggest that in terms of ideology “dimensions of involvement of language in socio-political matters are often very close and even interdependent (Maurais and Morris, 2003:67) to what people identify themselves.

Wolfram & Schilling-Estes (2006) define language ideology as “...an ingrained, unquestioned belief about the way the world is, the way it has to be with respect to language”. This view elicits multiple interpretations. Firstly, it means that “society operates on the language users” (Blommaert, 2005:35) on how relatively they conceptualize, perceive or even judge their surroundings. Secondly, it shows how language to a certain extent is contextualised in the physical environment in relation to socio-economic and political stand. Dyers and Abongdia (2010) are of the opinion that language ideology is constructed in the interest of specific social or cultural group: i.e. they are rooted in the socio-economic power and vested interests of dominant groups. In this regard language ideologies as ideas are not just about language structures or use; they often involve judgements of persons, for example as ‘intelligent’ or ‘ignorant’; assumptions about places, for example cities versus rural areas, and the language(s) of this country versus those of other countries (Harris and Taylor, 2005: 185-195).

Therefore, “…how speakers draw on their repertoires – depends primarily on the socio- ideological influences of the speakers and on the personae they wish to project, both to

34 identify themselves as members of certain groups and to negotiate their position in interpersonal relations’ (Myers-Scotton cited in Herbert, 1992: 165).

Language ideologies, which are socially constructed, will definitely influence the more personal and affective language attitudes (Dyers and Abongdia, 2010:119-134) because people’s attitude reflects the social structures in which the momentary conversation takes place, as well as the nature of participants’ relationships to each other (Diamond, 1996: 1) which in turn are dictated by power, status and other variables. Fasold (1984:184) argues that the concept of language attitude also includes attitude towards speakers of a particular language, and it is always encountered in communities where a particular group perceive its own language as superior than the other. The underlying assumption is that in a society (social or ethnic) groups have certain attitudes towards each other which relate the way turns in interactions are distributed among participants (Diamond, 1996:15). These attitudes affect attitudes towards cultural institutions or patterns characterizing these groups such as language, and carry over to and are reflected in attitudes towards individual members of the groups (Appel & Muysken, 1987). Figure 4 shows the attitude chain reproduced from Appel & Muysken.

→

Figure 4

Furthermore, these personal attitudes and social relations are communicated in multiple ways by speakers such as what people say, how they say it, by the types of utterances speakers make, by the conversational structure, by the tone of the voice and by their differing social positions.

attitudes towards the language of that group attitudes towards individual speakers of that language attitudes towards a social or ethnic group        

35 I contend that the ideologies of my respondents will have been shaped powerfully by the colonial language legacy in Angola, but that the long-term respondents will also have been influenced by dominant pro-English ideologies in South Africa. This in turn, may find expression through code-switching to English in conversations with fellow-Angolans as a means of exerting power over them.