Interpersonal Communication: Code Switching - Essay Example

?INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION: SWITCHING Introduction switching can be defined as the concurrent use of more than one language or dialect. It occurs within different contexts of social interaction and can occur within a particular language (Coffey, n. d.). People tend to use different forms of expressions depending on the people they are interacting with and where they are interacting with them. Code switching can as well exist in one’s first language. For instance, there can be many ways of pronouncing a particular word in the English language (Insurin, Winford & Bot, 2009, p.2). Code switchers who use English as their first language decide how they will switch the pronunciation of their English words depending on the setting within which they are speaking. The extent of formality or informality in a particular situation is what they consider most (Nilep, 2006). The decision to switch language is not too much of a conscience decision but it more or less just happens. Other people may not even use the colloquial ways of pronunciation but they are ubiquitous within the English language among people from diverse settings and backgrounds (Gluth, 2002, p.6). It is most likely that every individual use code switching in their first language. This could only lack if someone is born, lives and dies in an isolated village with no exposure to other codes (NPR, 2012). This paper presents an exploration of the social motivations for code switching and its use to express identity, social roles and discourse functions. It will also consider the attitude displayed by people towards their patterns of code switching. Code Switching Explained Socio-linguists maintain that code switching is almost a necessity and an unconscious communication that people use with ease and complexity at the same time. This means that individuals are aware of its existence but not self-consciously aware (Insurin, Winford & Bot, 2009, p.4). Thus, they can communicate in a formally appropriate way with one person and with an easier informal way with another person. For instance, in a work context, one would not greet their boss with a “Yo!” or a “How’re ya doin’?” not unless they want their next performance review to be unimpressive. They would instead greet them, “How are you?” or “Good Morning.” However, some bosses would not mind their juniors greeting them with a “Yo.” This is pretty much a form of code switching. Therefore, it becomes an issue of the nature of relationship existing between and among people at different contexts (Gluth, 2002, p.6). Code switching can be used to facilitate communication and obscure it at the same time. Viewed from its broadest, code switching cannot simply be reduced to assimilation, adapting, or register (Gluth, 2002, p.6). It is a combination of all these and even goes beyond familiarization or identifying with other people’s backgrounds. Other people do not change totally, but adopt features depending on the context they are in (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p.283). For instance, if a person bumps into his Cockney friend, his speech may automatically take to features of Cockney English, something they do not do elsewhere or with other friends. Therefore, code switching is a broad phenomenon, which cuts across one’s first language, familiarizing or identifying with the people around and formal and informal communication (Nilep, 2006). Social Motivations for Code Switching Factors such as social status, class, and ethnicity are believed to motivate most code switching behaviors. Other sociolinguists maintain that code switching is a way of structuring communication when interacting with people in different contexts while others argue that code switching is not merely used to depict social situations but it is rather a means of developing social situations (Bassiouney, 2006, p.159). Various theories have been advanced to explain the social motivations behind code switching. These theories include the Markedness Model, Sequential Analysis, and Communication Accommodation Theory (Auer, 2002, p.1). Markedness Model Carol Myers-Scotton developed this theory. It is one of the most unchallenged theories of the social stimulators for code switching. The theory holds that language users are rational and choose to communicate in a language that clearly depicts their rights and obligations in the conversation and its context, relative to other people (Myers-Scotton, 1995, p.1). When there is no clear choice of language, people tend to use code switching to navigate possible choices of language. Myers-Scotton posits that each language in a multilingual society is associated with specific roles, which she refers to as rights and obligations. When a person speaks a particular language, it is a gesture of their understanding of the current situation and specifically their appropriate role within the setting (Myers-Scotton, 1995, p.1). By using different languages, speakers stimulate concession over appropriate social roles. Speakers must, at least have a common understanding of what each available social code means (Myers-Scotton, 1995, p.1). Interlocutors would have no foundation for understanding the significance of particular code choices if such norms did not exist. Myers-Scotton’s model is stated in terms of a principle and three axioms. The negotiable principle holds that a speaker makes his language choice in a way that indicates the set of rights and obligations which he intends to enforce to the addressee of the current exchange (Nilep, 2006). The three axioms include the unmarked choice axiom, the marked choice axiom, and the explanatory choice axiom. The unmarked choice axiom posits that the speaker makes the unmarked set of rights and obligations his code choice in conversations when he intends to affirm a particular set of rights and obligations (Myers-Scotton, 1995, p.75). The marked choice axiom directs that the speaker compose a marked choice of code when he wants to affirm a new set of rights and obligations as unmarked for the current conversation. The explanatory choice axiom directs that in situations where the unmarked choice is not clear, code switching occurs to make alternate exploratory choices as participants for an unmarked choice and hence as an indicator for a rights and obligations set which the speaker prefers. In simple terms, the social meanings of code choice in addition to their causes are explained generally with regard to the rights and obligations of participants (Nilep, 2006). The subject matter of Myers-Scotton’s theory was two languages in everyday conversations. Throughout the world, bilinguals alternate between two languages. For instance, the Hispanics in Texas switch between Spanish and English in informal talks while Senegalese alternate between French and Wolof (Nilep, 2006). Popular beliefs suggest that such conversations are mainly a transitional phase in shifting from dominance in one language to another. However, this may not be true. It is true that many immigrants practice code switching when they are in the process of shifting language but this form of code choice is part of the day to day lives of many bilingual populations as well (Myers-Scotton, 1995, p.76). Code switching is neither the only means for social groups on the socio-economic contexts of the society (Nilep, 2006). In every country, for instance, business professionals who happen to speak a different language from the dominant language in the country they do business have no option but to engage in code switching between their prevalent language and the dominant language. This enhances communication with friends and business colleagues with the same linguistic repertoires (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p.283). For example, consider a Chinese-origin businessperson in London or a Lebanese-origin businessperson in New York or a Singapore-origin businessperson in Paris. Therefore, code switching enables linguistic alternations within the same conversation (Bassiouney, 2006, p.160). According to Myers-Scotton, pronunciations that occur because of code switching depict a common discourse unity in one linguistic range alone. If the switching is within a single sentence, for instance, the attributes from the two languages are typically joined together in a prosodic manner. Knowing and using more than one language is a common practice in entirely all lifestyles and occupations (Myers-Scotton, p.1). Sequential Analysis This theory was postulated by Peter Auer and Li Wei. They argued that the social motivation for code switching rests in the manner in which code switching is built and managed in conversational interaction (Auer, 2002, p.1). In simple terms, the causes for code switching cannot be explained without initially establishing how it happens. Auer and Wei used conversational analysis to address the sequential implications of code switching. In this view, they held that whatever language choice a speaker makes in a conversation has implications for their subsequent language choices as well as the addressee (Wei, n.d.). Their analysis focuses on the implications created by the practice of code switching rather than the inbuilt social values in the language chosen by the speaker. In multi-lingual communities, bilinguals use their linguistic repertoire as a means to juxtapose between its features during conversational interaction (Auer, n.d). In view of how code switching occurs, habit is one of the ways of explaining how it occurs. Code switchers feel that language shifting is a normal practice when they engage in conversations since they are used to this kind of language choice (Auer, n.d). The formation of a habit is closely associated with the psychological aspect of behavior. This means that an individual’s process of habit formation encompasses language choice, among other linguistic developments, depending on the environment they have been brought up since childhood (Wei, 1995, p.200). This is clearly depicted in the linguistic behavior of code switchers as far as language choice during conversational interaction is concerned (Auer, 2002, p.2). Code switching also happens due to the desire of individuals to identify themselves with a specific group to lure the attention of interlocutors when addressing a multilingual or a heterogeneous audience (Wei, n.d.). Therefore, it can be concluded that people tend to identify themselves with a popular linguistic group or the majority to develop a rapport with the group in context. Others engage in code switching just for prestige. They just want to show that they are familiar with a particular language (Auer, n.d.). There is that proud feeling one tends to have when they know something that others do not know. Above all, people will tend to shift language depending on the context or their immediate environment. For instance, one would use a completely different language codes at the workplace and at home (Auer, 2002, p.3). Communication Accommodation Theory This theory was advanced by Howard Giles and focuses on the cognitive reasons for code switching as well as other changes in speech. According to this theory, an individual seeks to either insist or minimize the social differences between themselves and the other people they are conversing with (Garrett, 2010, 105). Proponents of this theory suggest that when speakers seek recognition or approval in a social situation, they tend to merge their speech with that of the other participant(s) in a conversation. This includes but is not limited to the choice of language, accent or dialect and para-linguistic elements used in the conversation (Gluth, 2002, p.19). Speakers might engage in a divergent speech as individuals seek to stress on the social distance between themselves and other speakers by communicating in a language with similar linguistic characteristics to those of the other participants (Garrett, 2010, 105). On the other hand, a convergence approach involves speakers adapting to each other’s linguistic behaviors to minimize the social differences between them. According to Giles, when people interact with others, they adjust their choice of language, their gestures, and vocal patterns to accommodate others (Coupland, 2007, p.62). It is assumed that speakers integrate their diverse backgrounds and experiences to their interactions through conversations and behaviors. Therefore, it is important to note that speech and behavioral similarities are a common feature of all conversations (Gluth, 2002, p.20). Accommodation is determined by the manner in which people view and assess what happens during a conversation or rather how people understand and make conclusions about messages exchanged in a conversation (Insurin, Winford & Bot, 2009, p.2). According to this theory, code switching is motivated by issues related to socio-psychology including similarity attraction, causal attribution, social exchange as well as intergroup uniqueness (Garrett, 2010, 106). Similarity attraction holds that the more one’s attitudes, beliefs, and cultural background are similar to those of other people, the more likely it is for them to find themselves attracted to them (Liu, 2006, p.7). One of the means through which people can become more similar to others and hence increase their attraction to others is convergence through verbal communication. In view of this, it can be concluded that code switching is motivated by the desire to seek social approval from other participants in a conversation. Therefore, the greater their desire for social approval, the greater is their tendency to converge (Garrett, 2010, 107). The social exchange process means that before engaging in conversation, people attempt to evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action. As such, they tend to opt for the course of action that brings greater benefits and minimal costs (Garrett, 2010, 109). The theory of causal attribution posits that people interpret and evaluate other people’s behavior with regard to the motivations they perceive as the cause of their behavior. This applies in convergence where it might be perceived positively or negatively depending on the causes, people attribute it to (Coupland, 2007, p.62). The process of intergroup distinctiveness involves members of different backgrounds comparing themselves on lines, which matter to them when they are in contact. Therefore, individuals tend to change their speech patterns when they interact with other people so that they resemble the people they converse with more closely (Liu, 2006, p.7). People can toggle their speech through various elements of communication such as their choice of language, pronunciation, vocal patterns, non-verbal behaviors and pause, and utterance lengths (Heller, 1988, p.81). However, they do not necessarily have to converge simultaneously at all these levels. In other circumstances, people accentuate their linguistic differences to the people they are conversing with. This depicts the urge to demonstrate group distinctiveness positively (Coupland, 2007, p.63). This mostly occurs when a person views interaction with other people as an intergroup process rather than an individual affair. This method of code switching forms a very important technique of depicting valued uniqueness from other groups (Gluth, 2002, p.19). Code Switching, Identity Social Roles, and Discourse Functions Choices about how to talk and present one’s self are normal in life. Code switching is used to communicate certain social roles or meanings. According to a study done in Hungarian and German code switching cases, switching between the two languages conveys a certain meaning linked to the customary use of the two languages in the community. For instance, when an argument conducted in Hungarian is switched to German, it gives it some extra force hence the argument could probably end (Mesthire, 2000, p.165). It has been observed that code switching is widely used as a political strategy. Politicians switch between different language patterns to identify themselves with their supporters who are drawn from diverse backgrounds across a country (Nilep, 2006). The fact that languages tend to be linked to idealized circumstances as well as groups of speakers, code switching thus enables people to say and do two or more things where making of a choice is expected. Dominant groups rely on code switching to retain symbolic domination while subordinate groups rely on norms of language choice to reject or redefine the value they attach to symbolic resources (Mesthire, 2000, p.164). Ethnicity has also been associated with language and identity. According to studies done amongst Dominican Americans, issues of race, ethnicity, and domination have been shown to have a very strong relationship with language and identity (Nilep, 2006). The results of the study indicate that Dominican Americans define their ethnic affiliation at times as non-White and at other times as non-Black. What this means is that just like their fellow African-Americans, Dominican Americans view themselves as non-members of the dominant White category and at the same time reject being identified as African-Americans on phenotypic and ancestral grounds (Nilep, 2006). In discourse, Dominican Americans index this sophisticated identity by alternating between Dominican Spanish, African-American English, Caribbean Spanish, and other nonstandard English languages (Nilep, 2006). According to numerous studies, code switching and discourse can result to both empirical and theoretical significant misunderstandings of the importance of language switching as far as social interaction is concerned (Coupland, 2007, p.63). A careful examination of discourse indicates that, it is an element of interactional linguistics, which attempts to explain how language use matters in daily interactions and cognition. By associating observations with certain speakers and social actors, the role of language in the creation and transmission of social roles can be understood more reliably (Nilep, 2006). Conclusion Entirely all people in their everyday life practice code switching. It involves using more than one language concurrently. People tend to use different forms of expressions depending on the people they are interacting with and the environment within which they are interacting. Patterns of code switching differ depending with factors such as age, ethnic background, and environment among others. In any multilingual or multicultural setting, it is very normal to witness various forms of language switches. Numerous theories have been advanced to explain the major social motivations for code switching. Some of the motivations include the desire to identify one’s self with a particular group, habits that grow over time, and the desire to create social status and ethnicity among others. Above all, people engage in code switching in an attempt to minimize the social differences between them and those they engage in conversations with in different contexts. For instance, peers would use a particular language code amongst themselves but shift to another language code in other settings such as a work environment. Code switching is also used to depict social roles and discourse functions. In most times, code switchers are not consciously aware that they change their language code under different settings. Therefore, code switching can adequately be described as a necessity as far as social interaction in the different aspects of life is concerned. Bibliography Auer, P. (2002) Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. New York: Routledge. Auer, P. (n.d.) On the Meaning of Conversational Code-Switching. Retrieved April 14, 2012 from: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/4466/pdf/Auer_On_the_meaning_of_conversational.pdf Bassiouney, R. (2006) Functions of Code-Switching in Egypt: Evidence from Monologues. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. Coffey, H. (n.d.) Code Switching. Retrieved April 14, 2012 from: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4558 Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Garrett, P. (2010) Attitudes to Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gluth, E. (2002) Code-switching: grammatical, pragmatic and psychological aspects. An overview paper. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. Heath, R.L. & Bryant, J. (2000) Human Communication Theory and Research: Concepts, Contexts and Challenges. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Heller, M. (1988) Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Insurin, L., Winford, D. & Bot, K. (2009) Multidisciplinary Approaches to Code Switching. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company Liu, P. (2006) Code-switching and Code-mixing. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. Mesthire, R. et al. (2000) Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1995) Social Motivations for Codes-witching: Evidence from Africa. New York: Oxford University Press. Nilep, C. (2006) “Code Switching” in Sociocultural Linguistics. Retrieved April 14, 2012 from: http://nhlrc.ucla.edu/events/institute/2011/readings/He%20-%20Nilep.pdf NPR. (2012) Code Switching: Are We All Guilty. Retrieved April 14, 2012 from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122528515 Wei, L. (1995) Code-switching, preference marking and politeness in bilingual cross-generational talk: Examples from a Chinese community in Britain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16 (3), pp: 197-214. Wei, L. (n.d.) The ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions in the analysis of conversational code switching. Retrieved April 14, 2012 from: http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac/c-s/abst.html#lw Appendix Examples of code switching The following is a case of code switching in East Africa, especially along the Kenyan coast where there is diversity of races and ethnic groups. Code switching between English and Arabic, a language used by some migrants along the Kenyan coast is common. Below is an example showing an Arab tourist describing the behavior of ocean tides on a stormy day. Sometime ???? ?????? ????? ????? ocean tides ??? ??? this violent especially ?? ??????, ?? ????? ????? ?????a ‘Sometimes I always wonder why ocean tides are so violent especially in the morning.’ The next example of language switches in a conversation between a native Arab and an immigrant Arab who are both businesspersons. The immigrant is inquiring on the best business to set up in east Africa. Immigrant: ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? which business ???? in East Africa. ??? ???? ???? ?? business. ‘Can you give me advice on which business do well in East Africa. I want to start a business.’ Native: ??? ???? ????. pharmaceutical industries ??? ??? especially in Nairobi. ‘That is a good idea; pharmaceutical industries do very well especially in Nairobi.’ In most of the other regions, schoolchildren mainly speak their mother tongues while conversing with their parents, relatives or other people in the society. However, in school, the major medium of instruction is English but they interact with their peers using combinations of their native languages and English. The following example shows a conversation between a Kalenjin boy and a Kikuyu boy as they go home from school: Kalenjin: Kwetu home mtu haezi make jokes kama hizo. Father hakuangi mtu wa kuchezea. Kabla ya kwenda job lazima a-make sure everybody is out of bed. ‘At our home one cannot crack such jokes. Our father is not a person you can joke with. In fact, before he leaves for work, he must ensure that everybody is out of bed.’ Kikuyu: Mimi nowadays I am used to kuamka mapema ndio I go to school in time. Hata when we are on holiday mimi huamka the same time. ‘These days I am used to waking up early so that I arrive in school in time. I also usually wake up the same time even when we are on holiday.’ Read More