Gardner-Chloros: Code-Switching (4)

Gardner-ChlorosCode-SwitchingChapter 41. IntroductionCS: a linguistic product of language contact, determined in various ways by the social circumstances in which it occursTo what extent do the social circumstances affect the form which CS takes?- there is evidence that typological factors influence the type of CS found at grammatical level- no evidence that CS is constrained by the characteristics of the languages involved- Le Page (1997): language is a game in which all the speakers can covertly propose and try out rules, and all the listeners are umpires - certain kinds of CS are often found within certain language combinations/ social circumstancesWhat are the limits of these influences?- systematic comparisons between CS : 1) same language-pairs in different sociolinguistic contexts 2) different language-pairs in similar situations- three further sociolinguistic determinants: 1) conversational/pragmatic motivations 2) social psychological influences (Attitudes and CAT) 3) gender (Politeness Theory) - each instance of CS requires a multilevel explanation (presentation in the book involves oversimplification)2. Conversational/Pragmatic motivationsMyers-Scotton (1993): "allocational" paradigm (social structures determine language behaviour) vs. "interactional" paradigm (individuals make "rational choices" to achieve goals)Milroy/Gordon (2003): 1) pragmatic use to exploit the symbolism/connotations of each code 2) pragmatic use to exploit the contrast of the two varieties 2.1. Using the external symbolism of the two codesGumperz (1982): examples of both uses of CS (uses distinction between we-code/they-code)range of resulting interpretations is much greater than one would expect (no simple dichotomy)majority language is often linked to objectivization or depersonalization of the statementsymbolic associations of two codes are often exploited in advertisements2.2. Code-switching as a discourse-structuring deviceGoffmann (1979):concept of footing is highly relevant in CSGumperz (1982)CS as a "contextualization cue": interpretative framework for the referential content of a message2.2.1. Markedness Theory and the Rational Choice ModelMyers-Scotton (1983): Markedness Model In any given circumstance a particular variety is expected/"unmarked"/unremarkable one. What do bilingual speakers gain by conducting a conversation in two languages?drew on numerous theories (e.g. Politeness Theory)presented bilingual speakers as "rational actors"CS as unmarked choice where two sets of identities are normally indexed simultaneouslyCS as "exploratory" choicemarked = "out-group"; unmarked = "in-group"Li Wei (1998): Markedness Theory: very influential modelemphasis is placed on the analyst's interpretation of participants' intentions (external values)today emphasis is placed on the creation of meaning by participants within the conversation 2.2.2. Code-switching as "verbal action": Auer and Li WeiLi Wei (2005)criticizes "Rational Choice" Model switches have a specific meaning which can be interpreted within the conversation (s.o., Wei 1998)Gafaranga (2005)CS has to be identified on a case-by-case basisMeeuwis and Blommaert (1994; 1998)it is not always possible to define the situation unambiguously one needs to look at the actual linguistic practices in any given community to understand how the varieties are deployedGiles and Coupland (1991)speech depends on how speakers represent their characteristics and subjectively define the sceneBurt (2002)various maxims within Myer-Scotton's model can be in conflict (e.g. Deference Maxim vs. Virtuosity)Sachdev and Bourhis (2001)CS also occurs in the absence of/in spite of a normative frameworkAuer (1998)CS is part of "verbal action": meaning can best be found at a level of conversational structureconversational "moves"/sequential structures are importantpatterns of convergence/divergence Li Wei (1998)also contrasts Myers-Scotton's analysis with the CA approach focuses on speakers' procedures for arriving at local meaningsCS can be used to draw attention to a new conversational move subjects' language choices reflect linguistic preferences and authority structuresCS complements or reinforces discourse structuring devices CS to signify non-compliance (mismatch of linguistic preferences of younger and older generations)2.3. Code-switching compared with monolingual conversational moves2 assumptions: 1) code-switchers and monolinguals accomplish the same conversational function with different means2) It is more likely that switches are functional than non-functionalcode-switched and monolingual passages within the same conversation were compared direct comparison of the way in which particular conversation effects are realizedCS is used for repetition without appearing rude or condescending ("downtoner")CS is used to give speakers another "voice" to encode expressive meaningsCS to emphasize contrasting views/cohesionalthough discourse functions achieved by CS can be performed mono-lingually, they are more salient when they are marked by CS2.4. A Western view of "intentionality"?Stroud (1992)no domain, speech genre or topic is conducted exclusively in one languagecriticizes the whole notion of "intentionality" (inappropriate, Western view of "personhood")CS: rhetorical moves to highlight contrast/perceptual shiftsCS can provide different "voices" to one speaker (Bakhtinian notion of "voices")critical of CA: unclear what is meant by "language as social action"only a deeply ethnographic approach can get anywhere near understanding the "meaning" of CSdiversity of approaches CS has attracted: How can they be fitted together?3. Accomodation, attitudes and audience designlack of work on the social psychological aspects of CS (extremely relevant)3.1. Accommodation and audience designCS is a possibility to accommodate to the interlocutor's linguistic preferencescan serve as compromise between two varieties (different connotations; social meanings)mismatch between levels of competence compromise function is used in spontaneous speech as well as by politicians/ comedians/ media(multilingual audience for multilingual functions)CS as a prop to comprehension Gumperz: another major function is "addressee specification" (smoothly addressing different interlocutors)overlaps with accommodation"flagged" switches: inserting a conversational marker or comment at the point of the switchLawson-Sako and Sachdev (1996; 2000)object of their study is language choicessubjects converged most readily to the linguistic stereotype of in-group usage when the questioner looked as if they belonged to the in-groupaccomodation is itself a very complex phenomenon; not found equally across all members of populations3.2. Attitudesmany people show negative attitudes towards CS (pity, disgust, lack of education, bad manners, language inability)although CS is often widely reported in a range of circumstances the more educated the respondents, the less favourable their attitude towards CSyounger respondents saw it as more advantageous CS is gradually gaining acceptability in many contexts (hybridity is increasingly tolerated, becomes fashionable)much work remains to be done for a full understanding of attitudes to CS negative attitudes are often at odds with the actual behaviourattitudes to CS are learned rather than spontaneous (insecurity, feel threatened, indoctrinated to believe in "purity")these negative attitudes can often be applied to the less developed areas4.4. Gender- considered one of the most important sociolinguistic categories- ways in which it is studied have become more diversified- CS cannot be correlated in any direct way with gender- CS is woven in with female discourse strategies and discourse needs4.1. Code-switching and gender in various communitieswomen use more standard forms than men in monolingual settingssometimes the CS mode itself carries the "in-group" connotation ("local" type of speech)Cheshire and Gardner-Chloros (1998)no significant difference between men and women regarding the use of any kind of CSPoplack (1980)difference in amount (men more) and type of CS (men use more discourse marker) used by women and men Winter and Pauwels (2000)shift within gender studies from essentialist to constructionist viewgender as a dynamic construct; meaning varies in different domains (negotiated)Swigart (1991)women do not behave as a monolithic groupgender is no fixed, stable and universal category (no shared meaning within/across cultures)one should relativize the usual pattern of sexual differentiation and look at the discourse context and the reasons why particular choices are madeparticular linguistic forms do not always signal the same underlying motivations4.2. Code-switching, gender and politenessGardner-Chloros and Finnis (2004)Are certain specific functions of CS more common among women or men?women and men are code-switching for different purposesdifferent cultures place emphasis on different values, which are moreover interpreted differentlyPositive vs. Negative Politenessdifference in quality rather than quantity of politeness strategies (e.g. directness vs. indirectness, intimacy vs. distance)in Western societies women are expected to be more polite and indirect than menconsequently, women code-switch more often when directness is requiredfunctions of CS: humour, bonding (indicate identification, solidarity or intimacy), dampening directnessCS offers a powerful toolkit for women in order to not appear aggressive or unfemininegeneral politeness function associated with CS gender differences are contingent upon culturally determined norms role of gender is relativized (gender is mediated by other factors, such as power relationships or conventions) 5. Conclusionvarious social motivations for CS (e.g. desire to accommodate to one's interlocutor; expression of gender identification)rarely a simple, one-to-one correspondence between the factors and the use of CSNilep (2006): CS is "the practice of individuals in particular discourse settings"social structures, social identities and linguistic identities are constructed, accepted and rejected within the same conversationrole-taking is very subtle varieties are manipulated by bilinguals in varied waysnearly no limits how languages can be combined (borrowing at all levels)individuals are limited by their knowledge and perception struggle to demystify and systematize CS (e.g. Myers-Scotton)constructed systems can be subverted or ignored