Code-switching

Traditionally, the term code-switching has been used as an umbrella term to describe different forms of bilingual behaviours. Gumperz (1982: 59) defined code-switching as ‘the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems’. Bailey (2001: 238) understands code- switching as ‘the use of two or more languages in one speech exchange by bi- or multilingual speakers’. Code-switching has been illustrated by Myers-Scotton (1993: 1) as ‘alternations of linguistic varieties within the same conversation’.Bailey (2001：238) argues that language is the central ‘semiotic tool’ which represents social reality and functions to transmit sociocultural orientations in multicultural, multilingual contexts. Code-switching is therefore ‘both reflective and constitutive’ of the social processes that occur in such multilingual situations. Code-switching is of particular interest in linguistic ethnographic study as it is both a language contact phenomenon and a social contact phenomenon. In the context of

52

language classrooms like my study, code-switching happens quite commonly among teacher and students. The study of code-switching transitionally has developed into two different but related directions: structural and sociolinguistic. The structural approach focuses on identifying the syntactic and grammatical conditions of code-switching. It is mainly concerned with the structure of sentences. On the other hand, the sociolinguistic approach considers code-switching primarily as ‘a discourse phenomenon focusing its attention on questions such as how social meaning is created in code-switching and what specific discourse functions it serves’ (Boztepe, 2003: 3). My research aims to study multilingual practices in language classroom contexts to understand how participants use their linguistic and cultural knowledge as resources to break down the barriers between languages and negotiate their identities. This falls within the second category. The terms of ‘translanguaging’ and ‘flexible bilingualism’ which I will use in my study have their origins in sociolinguistics.

The reasons people switch between languages are varied. However, they could be categorised into two groups at the basic level. In one way, code-switching can be considered as ‘a tool for maintaining the flow of conversation’, in another way it can be understood as ‘a means of expressing something about the speaker’s identity’ (Greer, 2007: 29). Auer applied a sequential approach to the study of code-switching and proposed that ‘any theory of conversational code-alternation is bound to fail if it does not take into account the meaning of code-alternation, which in turn depends in essential ways on its “sequential environment”’ (Auer, 1995b: 116). This means that the understanding of code-switching has to be related to the language contexts in which it is applied. In addition, Auer introduces two functions of code-switching: discourse-related code-switching and participant-related code-switching. Discourse-related code-switching refers to ‘the use of code-switching to organise the conversation by contributing to the interactional meaning of a particular utterance’ (Auer, 1998: 4). According to Auer (1998: 8), in discourses where code-switching is applied, the

53

meaning of utterances is understood by all participants and usually involves the new language as a new ‘frame’ or ‘footing’ in the conversation. On the other hand, participant-related code- switching focuses on the linguistic preferences or competencies of hearers (Martin-Jones, 1995: 99). Martin-Jones (1995: 99) emphasises the importance of distinguishing these two functions and summarises it as discourse-oriented code-switching, which involves speaker- oriented and hearer-oriented alternations. This approach offers me a way to describe the functions of participants’ multilingual practices, and to discover the “hows” and “whys” participants break the boundaries between Chinese and English to communicate and negotiate with each other.

Martin-Jones (1995) reviewed a series of research on code-switching in the multilingual classroom and acknowledged that the quantitative approach used in code-switching studies focuses too much on the functions of code-switching and the time participants distributed in different languages. Later, the studies on code-switching switched to micro-ethnographic methods, which paid attention to particular moments in the classrooms (Martin-Jones, 1995). Lemke (2002: 83) considered code-switching as ‘skills’ while most scholars recognized it as a bad habit, which should be banned in the classroom. He argues that students ‘should learn to construct bilingual dialogues and texts which break every traditional rule of the separateness and autonomy of distinct languages’ (Lemke, 2002: 83). In the language classroom, language is not just for delivering information, it also serves to convey evidence about the participant’s own identity and about the relationship that distinguishes him/her from others (Mesthrie et al, 2000: 156). According to Mesthrie et al (2000: 171), the individual’s choice of language has to do with ‘maintaining, or negotiating, a certain type of social identity in relation to others’. When relationships between people in certain social contexts are not clear, code-switching provides speakers with an opportunity to negotiate their identities and develop relationships within the group (Mesthrie et al, 2000: 171).

54

In my study, participants’ backgrounds are diverse, and the multilingual practices in classrooms are also varied. For example, in the complementary school, parents and teachers communicate mainly in Chinese (including Mandarin and Chinese dialects such as Cantonese), and students are encouraged to speak as much as Mandarin as they can. Li (1994) studies code-switching and language mixing at the interactional level in the context of the Chinese community in the UK, and propose that individuals’ language choices and code- switching are ‘network specific socio-cultural practices’. In addition, code-switching is used by young people in the this globalised world for shifting frames of reference and making relevant local as well as global semiotic resources, including gender, life experience, popular culture, and language ideologies (Li, 2011b: 381). The term of translanguaging, therefore, is used by some scholars to indicate these multilingual practices which go beyond code- switching.