As shown in the above literature review, researchers have focused primarily on investigating bilingual oral CS or face-to-face interaction and the functions of such switches. The current study aimed to contribute to the phenomenon of bidialectal CS by investigating its functions via a different channel, namely, written rather than oral or face-to-face interaction. The current study also aimed to examine whether the patterns of CS differ by topic and occasion, as well as how gender and education could influence the pattern of CS.
Researchers examining oral CS have listed a wide variety of functions of CS. For instance, Bhatt and Bolonyai (2011) abstracted more than 130 functions of CS from 120 studies into five main principles: FACE, POWER, SOLIDARITY, FACE, and
PERSPECTIVE. The frequently identified functions include: quotation; repetition; interjection; addressee specification; emphasis; clarification; elaboration; focus; attention, attraction, or retention; a sentence filler; showing power solidarity and social status;
redefining a situation due to a change in participants, topic, or locale; personalization versus objectivization; and topic shift and role shift. Table 3.1 lists the most frequent and common functions of CS identified by Gumperz (1982), Bentahila (1983), Romaine (1995), and Albirini (2010, 2011).
60
Table 3.1 The Most Frequent and Common Social Motivations for CS. Gumperz (1982) 1. to introduce quotations
2. to specify the addressee as the recipient of the message 3. to provide reiterations
4. to add interjections 5. to qualify a message
6. to differentiate between what is personal and what is general, 'Personalization vs Objectivization'
Romaine (1995) 1. to function as a sentence filler 2. to clarify or emphasize a point 3. to shift to a new topic
4. to mark the type of discourse 5. to specify a social arena Bentahila (1983) 1. to emphasize a point
2. to add variety or heighten a contrast 3. to gain the floor
4. to change the topic of discourse 5. to introduce a quotation
6. to be used as a strategy adopted when the speaker gets lost for words. Albirini (2010, 2011)
why speakers of Arabic switch to SA:
1. to introduce formulaic expressions
2. to highlight the importance of a segment of discourse 3. to mark emphasis
4. to introduce direct quotations
5. to signal a shift in tone from comic to serious 6. to produce rhyming stretches of discourse 7. to take a pedantic stand
61 Albirini (2010, 2011)
why speakers of Arabic switch to DA:
1. to induce parenthetical phrases and fillers
2. to downplay a particular segment of the discourse 3. to signal indirect quotes
4. to simplify a preceding idea 5. to exemplify
6. to mark a shift in tone from serious to comic 7. to discuss taboo or derogatory issues
8. to introduce daily-life sayings 9. to scold, insult, or personally attack.
In addition, as Table 3.1 shows for CS between SA and DA, the findings of CS to DA show that it is utilized to convey unimportance, low-prestige, accessibility, and nonseriousness. In contrast, CS to SA is utilized to reflect the importance, high-prestige, sophisticated, and serious functions (Albirini 2010, 2011).
Because the current study focused on the social functions of code- switching/diglossic switching in Saudi Arabic speech on Twitter, it adopted the
sociolinguistic approach to explore the functions of CS in Saudi Arabic on Twitter focusing on religious, social, educational, athletic, and political topics. These topics vary in terms of the formality and informality range characterized by Ferguson (1959). In addition,
Ferguson’s (1959) context-based model was adopted here in the current study because Saudi dialectal and standards use seems to conform to Ferguson’s context-based model, or more aptly what Hudson (2002, p. 6) reframes it as a model whose main constraint is “situational context.” Thus, religious and educational topics are discussed in SA or H variety, whereas athletic or sports topics are informal and therefore discussed in DA or L variety. Social and political topics might vary in terms of formality and informality depending on the context or
62
occasion (i.e., whether the topic is serious or not). For this reason, if CS on Twitter resembles CS in face-to-face communication, we would expect to encounter the same functions such as those listed in Table 3.1 Conversely, if CS on Twitter does not resemble CS in face-to-face communication, we would expect to encounter different functions.
To investigate the code choice in the above mentioned five topics (religion, social issues, education, soccer, and politics), data from different hashtags dealing with the five topics were collected, as discussed in the Participants and Data Collection section below. In addition to adopting Ferguson’s (1959) situational model, the study adopted an interpretive qualitative approach in the analysis of the functions of CS. Therefore, the methodology for the current study was based on the ethnographic approach. As such, it utilized
sociolinguistic qualitative descriptive analysis to investigate the functions of CS on Twitter and to compare them to the functions found in face to face interaction as shown in Table 3.1 As the current study investigated the functions performed by written CS, the differences between written CS and functions of oral CS are predicted due to the difference in channel, namely, written versus oral or face-to-face interactions. The current study also investigated if the patterns of CS would differ by gender and education, and it examined how the patterns of CS would change by topic or occasion. Although the study design was primarily
descriptive, a quantitative approach also was utilized to analyze the ratios of SA use versus DA use considering the differences in gender and level of education.