Code-switching in Sociolinguistic Studies:

Review and Analysis

Khal i l El - Saghi r
kelsaghir@gmail.com
Wayne State University
February 2010
LIN 5770 - Sociolinguistics
Dr. Walter F. Edwards
_____________________________________________________________________________
- 2 -
Abstract
This paper reviews sociolinguistic studies on code-switching, a widespread
phenomenon among speakers of different languages and/or dialects. It differentiates
between code-switching and code-mixing and distinguishes between code-switching
and diglossia. And it presents and evaluates the theories that are presented to explain
the motivations and constrains for code-switching.
- 3 - http://www.t-2k.com/wsu
Code-switching in Sociolinguistic Studies
According to Wardhaugh (2010: p. 98), code is defined as the particular dialect or
language one chooses to use on any given occasion and the communication system
used between two or more parties. He asserts, Most speakers command several
varieties of any language they speak, and bilingualism, even multilingualism, is the norm
for many people throughout the world rather than unilingualism.
Code-switching and Code-mixing
It is thus the norm for speakers in multilingual societies to mix and switch codes
according to certain personal and social conditions of the communication theyre
involved in. These two processes of codes alternation are called code-mixing and code-
switching. Generally, code-switching describes any switch among languages in the
course of a conversation, whether at the level of words, sentences or blocks of speech,
such as what often occurs among bilinguals who speak the same languages, whereas
code-mixing describes the mixing of two languages at the word level (i.e., one word in
the sentence is in a different language) (Baker & Jones, 1998). However, there seems to
be no consensus among linguists in general, and sociolinguists in particular, on the
distinction between code-switching and code-mixing. Some researchers, such as
Wardhaugh (2010, p. 100), do not even distinguish between the two concepts. Fasold
(1984) defines code-mixing as the use of at least two distinct languages together to the
extent that interlocutors change from one language to the other in the course of a single
utterance, while Hudson (1980) defines code-switching as the speakers use of different
varieties of the same language at different times and in different situation, which seems
to refer more to a diglossic situation. In contrast to Hudsons definition, Gingras (1974:
167) seeing code-switching from the point of view of two different languages and only
occurring at sentence boundaries, he defines it as The alternation of grammatical rules
drawn from two different languages which occurs between sentence boundaries.
Gumperz (1971) calls the alternate use of codes within a single sentence
intrasentential code-switching, whereas the alternate use of codes between sentences
is intersentential code-switching. Gumperz & Hernandez-Chaivez (1975) and Gumperz
- 4 -
(1976) discuss how domain or situational switching has evolved into metaphorical
switching to express a personal or affective orientation to the content of speech, in
contrast to a more objective or impersonal use of a language. Wardhaugh (2010, pp.
101-102), equating code with language, further describes the two kinds of code-
switching: situational, which occurs when the languages used change according to the
situations, and metaphorical, which occurs when the languages used change according
to the topics, for which the choice encodes certain social values. Focusing on
multilingual childrens linguistic acquisition, McClure & Wentz (1975) point out that
competence in situational and metaphorical switching is attained well before
intrasentential switching norms are established. And more concerned with the role of
codes in delineating linguistic as well as social borders, Gal (1988, p. 247) defines code-
switching as a conversational strategy used to establish, cross or destroy group
boundaries; to create, evoke or change interpersonal relations with their rights and
obligations.
Finally, many linguists define the insertion of a single word from one language
into the sentence in another language as code-borrowing or lexical-borrowing.
Weinreich (1953), distinguishing between personal and social motivations for such
phenomenon, discusses various reasons for lexical borrowing and claims that there is
some kind of lexical gap, either in the internal lexicon of the bilingual speaker, or in the
language in general, which is filled by borrowing. One of my observations in this regard
is the widespread borrowing of the English word already into Arab-American bilinguals
Arabic speech. The reason for this code-borrowing is, in concurrence with Weinreich, a
lexical gap in the Levantine Arabic dialect (the most popular Arabic dialect in the U.S.).
Code-switching: Constrains and Motivations
What constrains and/or motivates the processes of code-switching?
Recent research points out three universal linguistic constraints. According to
Berk-Seligson (1986: 313), these are: (1) the equivalence of structure constraint; (2) the
size-of-constituent constraint; and (3) the free morpheme constraint.
- 5 - http://www.t-2k.com/wsu
Sociolinguistically, the practice of code-switching is motivated and constrained
based on the situational and/or metaphorical situation, such as social context, affiliation,
occupation, or personal affection. The norms can be observed or taught. In general, the
social domain (e.g., family, workplace, school, etc.), being an area of activity which is
tied to a certain code, plays a major role in motivating and constraining code-switching,
thus effecting the choice of codes being used for which topic while talking to which
interlocutor. On the other hand, other personal and social factors play significant role in
code-switching, such as language proficiency (e.g., gaps in the lexical repertoire of the
speaker), language prestige and power, social, political, and cultural loyalty and
cohesiveness (identity), and/or for simple habitual and convenience reasons, such as
telling jokes or using certain improper or offensive words in certain language.
Code-switching vs. Diglossia
Khubchandani (1985) distinguishes between codes used within a language
community and others used with the outside. Codes that are used for intergroup
communication in a region should come under the scope of bilingualism, whereas the
codes utilized for intragroup communication within a speech community qualify as
diglossia.
What is diglossia? Ferguson (1959) coined the word and defined it as a
relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the
language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very
divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the
vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in
another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for
most written and formal spoken purposes, but is not used by any sector of the
community for ordinary conversation. There are several examples of diglossia
worldwide, such as German and Swiss German in Switzerland, French and Creole in
Haiti, Greek and Modern Greek, and Classic Arabic and regional dialects in the Arab
world.
- 6 -
The most important distinction between code-switching and diglossia is that
whereas all codes used in code-switching are verbally communicable varieties, at least
one highly codified variety in diglossia is used only for writing. However, even this
defined distinction has recently been disputed by many linguists. A newly evolved
variety of spoken Arabic, called Formal Spoken Arabic (FSA), also referred to as
Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA), is not the vernacular of a circumscribed geographical
region, but nonetheless represents a real segment of the continuum of spoken Arabic
variants -a supra-regional, prestige form of spoken Arabic practical as a means of
communication throughout the Arabic-speaking world (Ryding, 1991). This variety also
defies Fergusons definition of diglossia for it (a) can only be learned through formal
education, (b) is highly codified and grammatically complex, (b) is not represented in
any formal written literature, and, yet, (c) is increasingly used by a growing sector of the
community for ordinary conversation.
Nevertheless, in multilingual societies, such as the Indian subcontinent, code-
switching, code-mixing, and diglossic complementation are regarded as different
devices of linguistic stratification at the disposal of a speech community. Individuals in
such societies acquire more synergy and serendipity, develop positive attitudes towards
variety in speech, and 'come out' of their language codes to a neutral ground, such as in
the use of lingua franca Hindustani. (Khubchandani 1983, 1985).
Conclusion
Even though research on code-switching has traditionally focused on speech
among members of bilingual/multilingual communities, particularly in informal settings, a
little has been written about the implication of the phenomenon on formal linguistic
production, i.e., written literature. The reason for this, as Poplack (1980) observes, may
lay behind the implicit assumption that code-switching is an informal speech style that
can only be observed in informal settings and that the group membership of the
researcher is a crucial factor for gathering code-switching data.
- 7 - http://www.t-2k.com/wsu
References
Baker, C. & Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1986). Linguistic constraints on intrasentential code-switching: A study of
Spanish/Hebrew bilingualism. Language in Society. 15(3): 313-348.
Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-340.
Gal, S. (1988). The political economy of code choice. In M. Heller (Ed.), Codeswitching.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gingras, R. (1974). Problems in the description of Spanish/English intrasentential
codeswitching. In G.A. Bills (Ed.), South-west areal linguistics (pp. 167-174). San
Diego: Institute for Cultural Pluralism.
Gumperz, J.J. (1971). Bilingualism, bidialectalism and classroom interaction. In Language in
social groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. (1976). The sociolinguistic significance of conversational code-switching. In J.
Cook Gumperz and J.J. Gumperz (Eds.), Papers in language and context (pp. 1-26).
Berkeley: Language Behavior Research Laboratory
Gumperz, J.J. & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1975). Cognitive aspects of bilingual communication.
In E. Hernandez-Chavez, A. D. Cohen & A. F. Beltramo (Eds.), El Lenguaje de Los
Chicanos: Regional and social characteristics used by Mexican Americans (pp. 154-
164). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hudson, R.A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Khubchandani, L.M. (1973). Indian bilingualism and English: An analysis of the 1961 census
data. Demography, 2(1), 160-174. New Delhi, India.
Khubchandani, L.M. (1985). Diglossia Revisited. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, 20,
199-211.
McClure, E. & Wentz, J. (1975). Functions of code switching among Mexican-American
children. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, (pp. 421-432). Chicago: CLS.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPANOL":
Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics. 18: 581-618.
Ryding, K.C. (1991). Proficiency Despite Diglossia: A New Approach for Arabic. The Modern
Language Journal, 75(2), 212-218.
Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics (6th Ed.). UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.