Code-switching as social interaction

Sankoff and Poplack (1981 as quoted in Rezvani 2011: 19) identify three types of code-switching according to the syntactical features of each type: tag-switching, intra-sentential switching and inter-sentential switching. Tag switching encompasses only code-switching that involves “the insertion of a tag or a short fixed phrase in one language into an utterance which is otherwise entirely in the other language” (Rezvani 2011: 19). Intra-sentential switching, on the other hand, refers to switches within the clause or sentence boundary. Similarly, inter-sentential code-switching occurs at a clause or sentence boundary, but each clause or sentence has to be either in one language or another. The sociolinguistic approach to code-switching is more significant relative to the present study, and therefore, it is discussed in more detail below.

3.2.2 Code-switching as social interaction

Next I will introduce three models of code-switching which all understand the phenomenon as a social action. The models will be presented in chronological order. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the discourse-analysis approach to code-switching.

Myers-Scotton’s (1993) Markedness Model treats code-switching as a part of social interaction and social context, such as the situation where language is used or the speakers and their interrelationship. In the core of the Markedness Model are “rights and obligations” (RO) sets which reflect “the attitudes and expectations of participants towards one another” and derive from situational features (Myers-Scotton 1993: 85). The RO sets are divided into unmarked and marked patterns; the first referring to speakers positioning themselves closely relative to the community or group in question. The latter, on the other hand, refers to situations where the speaker’s intention is to define or construct his or her position in relation to others, most likely arousing more attention to him or herself. The marked code is the one that in particular interaction between speakers would be regarded as unnatural by most members, whereas the unmarked code would be viewed as the most natural in the same situation (Levine 2011: 52). According to the Markedness Model speakers are aware of the unmarked pattern and choose to either follow or defy it depending on how they wish to position themselves. Criticism towards the Markedness Model questions whether it is possible to claim that code choice merely reflects the social norms in question (Levine 2011: 53). Myers-Scotton (Myers-Scotton and Bolonyai 2001: 8) admits that the Markedness Model is flawed in the sense that the link between rationality is not discussed thoroughly and actual explanation on “how linguistic choices translate into social meanings” is missing from the model.

The interactional approach of Auer (1998), Li Wei (1998) and colleagues attempts to explain code-switching through analyzing speakers in interaction and focusing on conversation-internal features. The interactional approach suggests that the reasons for code choice are actually constructed in the context of a particular conversational exchange (Auer 1998, Li Wei 1998).The analytical approach to code-switching focuses on “how the meaning of code-switching is constructed in interaction” (Li Wei 1998: 169). Li Wei (1998: 161) further emphasizes that “[b]ilingual speakers change from one language to another in conversation not because of some external value attached to those particular

languages, but because the alternation itself signals to their co-participants how they wish their utterances to be interpreted on that particular occasion”.

Myers-Scotton’s (2002) Rational Choice Model is founded on both of the models discussed above and tries to cover the phenomenon in a more diversified way.

The Rational Choice Model is a revised version of the earlier Markedness Model and shares the same core features as the predecessor; the unmarked and marked patterns are constructed socially and they are part of all bilingual language use (Myers-Scotton 2002: 205-206). In addition, the Rational Choice Model argues that code choice is ultimately rationally based and done by an individual (Myers-Scotton and Bolonyai 2001: 1). Principles of rational behavior govern talk and interaction and thus particular choices in conversational exchanges are made in relation to the utility of each code and the code that offers the best overall outcome is chosen (Elster 1979, 1989 as quoted in Myers-Scotton and Bolonyai 2001: 2).

In addition to the models presented above, code-switching can be approached and analyzed with the help of discourse analysis. In discourse-analytical view the context where interaction takes place is given priority (Levine 2011: 62).

According to Levine (2011: 62), classroom language choice and code-switching can be studied in a multifaceted way through discourse-analytical method as “it takes into consideration the micro-interactional turns-at-talk as well as the macro-social, historical arc in which code choices happen”. Scollon (2001 as quoted in Levine 2011: 62-63) has merged different views of discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis into three “principles for understanding classroom code choice”. The first principle states that discourse is seen as social action and meaning making includes language use. According to the second principle meaning can be communicated because the speakers share a system of meaning and language is the main such system. The third principle takes into consideration the historical aspect and states that although utterances may have diverse meaningful features, alone they are quite insignificant but when they occur simultaneously they become meaningful. Gee’s (2005 as quoted in Levine

2011: 63-64) view on discourse analysis shares the core ideas with Scollon’s principles as he sees that “users of language enact particular identities through language-in-use, called ‘discourse with a “little d”’ [and] all aspects of context in which language-in-use occurs, ‘”big D” Discourse’”. That is, language use and thus language choice and code-switching can be approached through the different Discourses, or in other words contexts, where code-switching occurs and through different aspects of language-in-use.

The models discussed above are not inclusive or flawless, but they will be helpful in approaching language classroom code-switching from different perspectives, focusing on both why and how the teacher decides on the use of a particular language.