assignment 6: Code Switching

Definition

Hymes (1974) defines only code-switching as “a common term for alternative use of two or more languages, varieties of a language or even speech styles”

http://www.njas.helsinki.fi/pdf-files/vol15num1/ayeomoni.pdf

 In an educational context, code-switching is defined as the practice of switching between a primary and a secondary language or discourse.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4558

Types of Code Switching

♫     Mechanical Switching

It occurs unconsiously, and fills in unknown or unavailable terms in one language. This type of code-switching is also known as code-mixing. Code-mixing occurs when a speaker is momentarily unable to remember a term, but is able to recall it in a different language.

♫     Code-changing

This type is characterized by fluent intrasentential shifts, transferring focus from one language to another. It is motivated by situational and stylistic factors, and the conscious nature of the switch between two languages is emphasized.

♫     Tag-switching

This type involves the insertion of a tag in one language into an utterance that is otherwise entirely  in the other language.

Function of Code Switching

Zentella (1985), stated in Code Switching by Richard Nordquist, said that Code-switching performs several functions:

Ø  People may use code-switching to hide fluency or memory problems in the second language (but this accounts for about only 10 percent of code switches).

Ø  Code-switching is used to mark switching from informal situations (using native languages) to formal situations (using second language).

Ø  Code-switching is used to exert control, especially between parents and children.

Ø  Code-switching is used to align speakers with others in specific situations (e.g., defining oneself as a member of an ethnic group).

According to  Gumperz (1982), stated in Issues in Code-Switching: Competing Theories and Models by Erman Boztepe, there are  six  functions of Code Switching:

·         Quotation

Quotations are occurrences of switching where someone else’s utterance is reported either as direct quotations or as reported speech.

·         Addressee specification

In here, the switch serves to direct the message to one particular person among several addressees present in the immediate environment.

·         Interjection

Simply serve to mark sentence fillers as in the insertion of the English filler you know in an otherwise completely Spanish utterance.

·         Reiteration

It occurs when one repeats a message in the other code to clarify what is said or even to increase the elocutionary effect of the utterance.

·         Message qualification

Gumperz (1982) defines message qualification as an elaboration of the preceding utterance in the other code in Mann & Thompson’s (1986) sense.

·         Personalization versus Objectification

Personalization versus objectification signals the degree of speaker involvement in a message as in the case of, for example, giving one’s statement more authority in a dispute through Code Switching.

Sources:

The Sociolinguistic Dimension of Code Switching, http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/124915/the-sociolinguistic-dimension-of-code-switching accessed on May 9, 2012, at 9 am

The Study Of Code Switching,retrieved fromhttp://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/002401/bookpart.pdf  accessed on May 9, 2012, at 9.45 am

assignment 5: summary of chapter 7

Approaches to Discourse

♪      Speech Act Theory (Austin 1955, Searle 1969)

                This approach is based on belief that language is used to perform actions. Every utterance can be analyzed as the realization of the speaker’s intent (illocutionary force) to achieve a particular purpose. It concerned with the analysis of continuous discourse.

♪      Interactional Sociolinguistics (Gumperz 1982, Goffman 1959-1981)

It concerned with the importance of context in the production and interpretation of discourse.

♪      Ethnography of Communication (Dell Hymes (1972b, 1974)

                This approach is concerned with understanding the social context of linguistic interactions: ‘who says what to whom, when, where. Why, and how’. The ethnographic framework has led to broader notions of communicative competence.

♪      Pragmatics (Grice 1975, Leech 1983, Levinson 1983)

This approach is at the base of pragmatic approach is to conversation analysis is  Gricean’s co-operative principle (CP). This principle seeks to account for not only how participants decide what to DO next in conversation, but also how interlocutors go about interpreting what the previous speaker has just done.

Provides useful means of characterizing different varieties of conversation, e.g. in interactions, one can deliberately try to be provocative or consensual.

♪      Conversation Analysis (Harold Garfinkel 1960s-1970s)

CA identified TCU as the critical units of conversation; it has not specified exactly how a TCU boundary can be recognized in any situation.

♪      Variation Analysis (Labov 1972a, Labov and Waletzky1967)

Variationists’ approach to discourse stems from quantitative of linguistic change and variation.

Although typically focused on social and linguistic constraints on semantically equivalent variants, the approach has also been extended to texts. Variationists’ approach to discourse stems from quantitative of linguistic change and variation.

♪      Structural-Functional Approaches to Conversation