Theoretical frameworks of code switching

Overall, the study of code switching (CS) can be grouped into two different but related approaches: structural and sociolinguistic. The structural approach focuses on grammatical aspects. Its emphasis is to detect syntactic and morphosyntactic constraints in code switching. The sociolinguistic approach, however, sees CS

mainly as a discourse phenomenon where the aim is to understand how social meaning is created in CS as well as the specific discourse functions it serves. Although they appear contradictory, it should be mentioned that they indeed complement each other instead of contradicting. Since the scope of this study is limited to the use of CS in teaching and learning, the sociolinguistic approach is not considered in this thesis. In this thesis, the following two models that are related to the structural approach will be reviewed:

1) Gumperz’s interactional model. 2) Myers-Scotton’s markedness model.

Gumperz’s interactional model

Gumperz’s interactional model refers to how language users create meaning via social interaction (Gumperz, 1982). The focus of analysis in this model is not only the words used in the language but also the subtle cues and contextual gestures that are often specific to a culture (Tannen, 2005). According to Gumperz, people communicate when they understand the meaning of what is said in a particular context. Since contexts are always changing, the way this communication occurs varies as well. From the various aspects identified in the model, this researcher chose the following for their relevance to pedagogy:

1) Linguistic choice. 2) Contextualisation cues.

1) Linguistic choice

According to Gumperz (1972), the interpretation of a conversation depends on the ongoing process of the conversation. The same sentence might mean different things in different contexts, whereas different sentences in the same context may point to the same meaning and result in a similar response. Thus, according to the author, linguistic choice not only depends on grammatical knowledge but also on social interaction and settings.

For example, if we consider the following example observed by Susan Gal in Austria in 1978, we see that the grandfather uses a higher prestige language, German, to command his grandchildren to come to him (kum her!) because they did not listen to him when he spoke Hungarian.

(Well, come here! Out all this way) mind e kettuotok, no hat akkor! (both of you, well now)

kum her! (pause) Nem koapsz vacsorat

(Come here! You don't get supper.)” (Auer & Wei, 2007, p.20)

According to the author, since German was the more formal language at the time of the observation, the grandfather used it to emphasise his command. While evaluating various examples of code switching, Woolard (2004) described this example as a “classic example” of metaphorical CS. The concept of switching to a major language to win an argument or achieve an intended objective can be further understood if we explore the original definition provided by Blom and Gumprerz (1972):

“The semantic effect of metaphorical code switching depends on the existence of a regular relationship between variables and social situations. The context in which one of a set of alternates is regularly used becomes part of its meaning so that when this form is then employed in a context where it is not normal, it brings in some of the flavour of this original setting” (Blom & Gumprerz, 1972 p.425).

This concept is useful in the present research. By using certain terms in Arabic instead of English, the teacher can potentially make the class friendlier or more engaging for students, thus making them more responsive.

2) Contextualisation cues

Contextualisation cues relate to conversational code switching. Boztepe (2005) mentions that in 1992, Gumperz observed that “he sees the code, the dialect, and even style switching processes, as well as prosodic features of speech and formulaic expressions, as implicit ways of conveying meaning as part of the interaction between speakers” (p, 423). This means that any sign - verbal or non-verbal - with which the speaker changes the context of the language can be considered a contextualisation cue (Dimitrijević, 2004).

Contextual cues and the choice of relevant codes help the speaker to establish a meaningful conversation, to which the listener can understand and respond. Gumperz’s interactional model is relevant for this study because the teachers and students are bilingual, and CS can serve an expressive function in order to enhance

teachers’ ability to express complex terms in Arabic while creating a better learning experience for the students.

Myers-Scotton’s markedness model

Myers-Scotton’s markedness model of analysing conversation originates from her “negotiation principle”, which consists of the following:

“Choose the form of your conversation contribution such that it indexes the set of rights and obligations which you wish to be in force between speaker and addressee for the current exchange” (Myers-Scotton, 1992, p.113).

Myers-Scotton’s markedness model explains the social motivation of CS (Myers- Scotton, 1992). The aim of the model is to account for the socio-psychological motivations of speakers when they engage in CS. Although her own studies have focused on CS in the African context, Myers-Scotton’s model has universal, predictive validity for all bilingual and multilingual communities (Meeuwis & Blommaert, 2005). According to the theory, the markedness model can be categorised into three main groups:

1) CS as unmarked choice 2) CS as marked choice

3) CS as an exploratory choice.

1) CS as unmarked choice

The unmarked choice maxim suggests that the speaker does not choose any sudden or surprising switch of code in the conversation but code switches based on the requirements of the conversational context (Smith, 2008). An example of this is the following dialogue:

“DS: (directed to AP) This is (JM’s name). JM: Hey. Nice to meet you.

AP: Nice to meet you.

DS: He graduated from high school last year. He works at Mount Vernon Mills. Is your mother here?

AP: No. (*E)

DS: Oh, here she is, (AP’s name). Ok. Entonces, uh, let's see. Bueno, es lo que sé yo. Ok, you want me to talk to you in English or in Spanish?

JM: Um? Es DS: Los dos.

JM: Los dos. Lo que sea.

DS: Ok. Like they got, uuh, el, uuh, like you have an introduction? JM: Um, Um.

DS: Do you know? You have a paragraph introduction, then you have like the para una composición de, de, de, de, cuatro párrafos?

JM: Eh, no, es diferente. DS: No, de cinco párrafos.

JM: Es diferente. Ellos tienen como un tema, sin, sin, ¿cómo se llaman para uh los paragraph, cómo, paragrafos, parafos?

DS: paragraphs

JM: Uh, (*S) no tienen la párrafos, sino que es todo junto. Entonces, tienen una como decir, ¿no tiene un libro usted?

DS: ¿De qué?” (Smith, 2009. p, 202)

In this particular example, the first part is in English and the second part is in Spanish. This is because in this scenario, AP only knows English, and DS is also proficient in Spanish. Therefore, when JM speaks to them he speaks English continuously as long as AP is present and then switches to Spanish when DS is the only conversation partner. Therefore, in this example, both halves are unmarked choices with code switching in between.

Unmarked choice has been used to teach scientific terminology that does not have an equivalent translation (Kite, 2001). While the teacher is explaining the concept, instead of using the target language, they use CS to explain the technical term and increase the possibility of learning by making it more understandable for the student.

2) CS as marked choice

Marked choice, on the other hand, is when the speaker makes an unexpected choice consciously or unconsciously (Jagero & Odongo, 2011). In the following example, the speaker does not need code switching to say words such as insurance, or to say he does not know. However, the speaker does make a sudden code switch, giving rise to a marked choice.

“ER: Ah, dice Miguel Trujillo. (*) record. Ah, consumidor, seguro, gente, estricto (*S) (*)

MT: You don't know?

ER: (*,*S) consumidor (*,*S) insurance, seguro de la casa, (*S) mil ciento cuarenta dólares el contrato del, um, se dio bajo el día de agosto diez y ocho de este año. Um, dice que esto si está bien para, para (*)

(*)

MT or PT: (*) carta! (*)

ER: Que es para que tú pases (*S) la agencia de seguro (*) del banco, del banco, no, éste es del banco, que te está diciendo que si está asegurado, la

casa por esta cantidad de dólares, está bien o no, tú chequéalo, y el contrato dado es del día diez y ocho.” (Smith, 2009. p, 196)

Motivations for marked choices can vary tremendously. Although Myers-Scotton (1993) initially suggested that code switching as a marked choice is used to renegotiate social distance, other researchers have found that, in many different settings, people can have other intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for marked choices such as semantic motivation or demonstration of symbolic power (Li, 1999; Palmer, 2009, Sohail & Malik, 2014)

3) CS as an exploratory choice

A speaker chooses to use code switching as an exploratory choice when there is no unmarked choice, and the speaker may not be sure if the marked choice is appropriate in the social context in which they are interacting. For example:

“AR: You’re gonna waste your time. DS: Hum?

AR: You're gonna waste your time. DS: Bueno, yo te ayudo y tú me ayudas. AR: um, hum

DS: a la vez

AR: Yeah, that's the reason. Bueno, en ser (clears throat). DS: (laughing) Está bien.

AR: (laughing) Do, do you have other idea for this? DS: Uhh, let's see.” (Smith, 2009. p, 207)

In this particular example, the first speaker started in English but the second speaker continues in Spanish. After a while, the first speaker understands that, in order to continue the conversation, it is better to speak Spanish and therefore the first speaker switches to Spanish. In this example, although DS knows both English and Spanish, DS is more proficient in Spanish, so AR decides to switch to Spanish rather than continuing to speak in English. Such code switching can be useful in class when explaining complex terms. This is because the teacher can start the sentence in the language of instruction but if students have difficulty understanding a term in this language, the teacher can switch to the students’ L1 to explain the concept or to check understanding.

In summary, the markedness model can suggest an increase or decrease in social distance between the participants in code switching. This model can be used in the

class to create deliberate engagement or negotiation to achieve certain goals. It can be used to emphasise ideas, explain concepts and vocabulary, and to obtain agreement.