Nguyen Code Switching: A sociolinguistic perspective

1. Auflage 2015
ISBN: 978-3-95489-770-4
Verlag: Diplomica Verlag
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 0 - No protection

E-Book, Englisch, 59 Seiten

Nowadays the alternation between two languages which is known as code-switching is rather the norm than exception in many communities due to the fact that there are nearly seven thousand languages spoken throughout the world and more than half of the worlds’ population is estimated to be bilingual and engages in code-switching. Code-switching remains one of the central issues in bilingualism research. For a long time, code-switching has been considered as a lack of linguistic competence since it was taken as evidence that bilinguals are not able to acquire two languages or keep them apart properly. Nowadays it is the common belief that code-switching is grammatically structured and systematic and therefore can no longer be regarded as deficient language behaviour.The purpose of this essay is to explore the question why bilingual speakers engage in code-switching based on selected theories from a sociolinguistic perspective which looks beyond the formal aspects and concentrates on the social, pragmatic and cultural functions that code-switching may have.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Nguyen, Thuy

Fachgebiete

• Geisteswissenschaften Sprachwissenschaft Soziolinguistik
• Geisteswissenschaften Sprachwissenschaft Mehrsprachigkeit

Leseproben

Text sample:

Chapter 4, The Sociolinguistic dimension of code switching:

The study of codeswitching from a sociolinguistic point of view explores in particular the question why bilinguals perform codeswitching and in which situations a switch may be predictable. Although sociolinguists investigate the same questions they use different approaches in search of possible answers. In sociolinguistics, there is a basic distinction between macro-level approaches and micro-level approaches.

Macro level approaches, on the one hand, pay special attention to institutional and sociological categories which are prevalent in a linguistic community. These categories or boundaries are considered to be restricting to individual language behaviour. Accordingly, macro-level approaches explain individual language choices like code switching as derived from societal norms and structures. The individual behaviour of the interlocutors is exclusively regarded in terms of institutional, sociological categories and as a consequence of these factors.

Micro-level approaches, on the other hand, place their focus on the interlocutors of a conversation themselves and the relationship between them in order to draw conclusions on the meaning of speech behaviour.

Those linguists who apply micro-level approaches in order to explain the motivations behind codeswitching regard institutional and societal factors as insufficient or irrelevant to their goal. According to micro-level approaches it is the act of speaking itself and the speakers’ values and communicative needs which are expressed through it that indeed gives meaning to language choices.

The chapter continues with introducing a study applying a macro-level perspective. Joshua Fishman’s domain analysis serves as an appropriate example to explain the relation between society with ist norms and expectations and individual language behaviour. He establishes a theory in which he tries to explain under which conditions or for which activities bilingual speakers are likely to choose a particular language.

4.1 Joshua Fishman’s domain analysis:

4.1.1. Language choice in a multilingual community:

Joshua Fishman’s analysis of multilingual settings is based on the question ‘Who speaks what language to whom and when?’(Wie 2000:60). The aim of the study is to discover and describe several analytic variables which contribute to an understanding of this question. Such a focus provides, on the one hand, stable bilingualism meaning that there is no shift from one language to another with the possible consequence of language loss and on the other hand, the existence of stable norms in a society which influence language choice and the habitual use of language (Hakuta 1999). The Puerto Rican community in Jersey served as an appropriate example for this purpose since their members were able to communicate proficiently in Spanish as well as in English. Fishman and his colleagues explored the general perception that bilingual speakers in a community use one language in a certain situation and the other language in another one. In order to do this, they observed the different conditions under which English and Spanish were used in Jersey. Resulting from the observations and interviews Fishman and his colleagues have made they came amongst others to the conclusion that the bilingual speakers of this community were very aware of their alternating language use. Consequently, speech behaviour such as codeswitching was not a random matter in a multilingual society. According to Fishman‘ Proper usage, or common usage, or both, dictate that only one of the theoretically co-available languages will be chosen by particular classes of interlocutors on particular occasions.’ (Fishman 1965:89)
Here, Fishman emphasizes that rather one language is the more appropriate one in a specific situation. He further refers to three main factors which influence the choice of language spoken in a conversation. Thus, the interlocutors of a conversation, the occasion including the place where it takes place and the topic the speakers are talking about determine the language choice. However, these factors cannot be regarded isolated from each other.

4.1.2 Factors determining language choice:

Language choice is first of all determined by the speakers themselves and what attitudes and preferences those bring with them. The interlocutors of a conversation can be characterized by physiological features as age or gender as well as by sociological criteria as race, religion and status (Wie 2000). In addition, interlocutors characterize above all through their reference group membership. Fishman gives the example of a government functionary in Brussels who uses French at work, standard Dutch when having a drink at his club and a local variant of Flemish at home. This example reveals that the language choice of the government functionary varies from one situation to the next. In each case the functionary identifies with the group to which he belongs to or from which he wants to gain approval by claiming his membership through the choice of the appropriate language. However, Fishman revises an exact one two one relationship between the reference group membership and the choice of language meaning that it is also possible that the government functionary could be addressed in French at his club. Thus, the existence of reference group is not necessarily a result of group-consciousness or awareness but must rather be regarded in dependence with the location and other environmental factors (Fishman 1965). Due to this fact, the concept of reference group membership leaves many exceptional cases. However, what is important about reference groups is that they reveal different relationships between interlocutors which in turn have an impact on the language choice in a conversation. In other words, a language will be chosen according to the degree of intimacy or formality which prevails in the relationship between the speakers and this particular degree of intimacy of formality between speakers is determined by the several reference groups (Hakuta 1999).
Another regulating factor influencing language choice is the concept of situation. Fishman uses situation as a cover term which has been used to refer to a large variety of aspects. With regard to the participants these are according to Fishman aspects such as physical setting, topic and functions of a conversation as well as the style which is employed (Fishman 1965). Fishman concentrates for his purposes especially on the aspect of style, which can give a clue about the degree of intimacy or formality of a conversation. Moreover, style can reveal something about the status of an interlocutor or serve as a demonstration either power or solidarity. In other words, particular styles in different languages are considered to reveal the relationship between two interlocutors in terms of intimacy, formality and equality (Fishman 1965). So do bilinguals relate one of their languages more with informality, intimacy and equality than the other and consequently one particular language is more likely to be used in a certain situation than the other. Thus, in the Puerto Rican community in New Jersey a bilingual speaker may choose to speak English for rather formal occasions at work but Spanish in informal, more intimate interaction with family and friends.

Furthermore, topic is an important factor regulating language choice. There are several reasons why a change in topic can cause a switch to another language. Usually a speaker prefers to use a particular language for a certain topic based on the assumption that certain topics are better to handle in a specific language more than in the other one. This owes to the fact that bilingual speakers are seldom equally proficient in both languages. Therefore, a speaker may feel more competent to deal with a topic in one certain language since he or she has learnt the terminology according to this topic and is lacking the appropriate terms for a satisfying conversation in the other language. Another reason might be that the speaker might think that a language does not possess the appropriate terms for a certain topic and the other language is then simply considered to be the better language for speaking about this particular topic (Hakuta 1999).
Although interlocutor, situation and topic remain relevant factors that influence language choice they are according to Haberland (2005) not sufficient in themselves to explain choice patterns. Therefore, Fishman introduced the term domain as an analytical concept.
[…]

Über Autor(innen)

Thuy Nguyen has studied Anglophone studies and media and technology design at the University of Duisburg Essen and now works at the Technische Universität Dortmund in the field of teacher education.