Assignment No.

01

M Phil Session 2008-2009

Code-switching and code-mixing

Subject: Sociolinguistics

Submitted By: Gul Zamin Khan

Submitted to: Dr. Khalil Ahmad

Department of English

UNIVERSITY OF MALAKAND

1
Code-switching may be defined as “changing back and forth between two language varieties,

especially in a single conversation” (Crystal, P. 47). Sociolinguists use the term code to denote

any identifiable speech variety, including both a particular language and a particular variety of a

language. Many speakers have control over at least two varieties of their language (for example,

a Pushto- speaker may speak both his local variety of Pushto and standard Pushto – Yosufzai

dialect), and many more have control over two languages (for example, Pushto/Urdu bilinguals

in Karachi). Such speakers will shift back and forth between these varieties, depending on such

factors as who they are talking to, where they are, and what they are talking about. These

bilinguals or multilinguals, people who speak more than one language, at times use elements of

two (or more) languages in conversing with each other. Certain social factors - who you are

talking to, the social context of the talk, the function and topic of the discussion - turn -out to be

important in accounting for language choice in many different kinds of speech community. It has

proved very useful, particularly when describing code choice in large speech communities, to

look at ’typical’ interactions which involve these factors. Thus, “code-switching is the

syntactically and phonologically appropriate use of more than one linguistic variety”(Holmes,P. 27).

Very often, code-switching occurs within a single conversation. Spanish speakers in the USA,

Urdu speakers in Islamabad, Pushto speakers in Karachi and Gujarati-speakers in Britain may

switch back and forth repeatedly during a single conversation, sometimes even changing

languages in the middle of a sentence. Sociolinguists are interested in trying to identify the

factors that determine the choice of language variety at a given point during an exchange.

Scholars use different names for various types of code-switching. “Intersentential switching

occurs outside the sentence or the clause level (i.e. at sentence or clause boundaries). Intra-

sentential switching occurs within a sentence or a clause. Tag-switching is the switching of either

a tag phrase or a word, or both, from language-B to language-A, (common intra-sentential

2
switches). Intra-word switching occurs within a word, itself, such as at a morpheme boundary”

(Wikepedia).

Code-switching is distinct from other language contact phenomena, such as borrowing , pidgins

and creoles , loan translation (calques), and language transfer (language interference). “Speakers

form and establish a pidgin language when two or more speakers who do not speak a common

language form an intermediate, third language” (Romaine, P.1). On the other hand, speakers

practice code-switching when they are each fluent in both languages.

“Code-switching relates to, and sometimes indexes social-group membership in bilingual and

multilingual communities” (Holmes, P. 27). Some sociolinguists describe the relationships

between code-switching behaviours and class, ethnicity, and other social positions. In addition,

scholars in interactional linguistics and conversation analysis have studied code-switching as a

means of structuring talk in interaction. “Analyst Peter Auer suggests that code-switching does

not simply reflect social situations, but that it is a means to create social situations” (Wikepedia).

People sometimes switch code within a domain or social situation. When there is some obvious

change in the situation, such as the arrival of a new person, it is easy to explain the switch. For

example, two friends, Gul and Sohaib, with the same linguistic background meet after a while.

Gul is Pushtoon and although the rest of the meeting will be conducted in English, Sohaib

switches to Pushto to greet him. The Pushto greeting is an expression of solidarity. So a code-

switch may be related to a particular participant or addressee.

A speaker may similarly switch to another language as a signal of group membership and shared

ethnicity with an addressee. Even speakers who are not very proficient in a second language may

use brief phrases and words for this purpose. Our Punjabi friends used to throw in here and there

a Pushto word or phrase (he would have picked up from us) while talking to express group

3
membersip. “Scottish Highlanders who are not proficient speakers of Gaelic nevertheless express

their identification with the local Gaelic speech community by using Gaelic tags and phrases

interspersed with their English. Maori people often use Maori words and phrases in this way too,

whether their knowledge of Maori is extensive or not. The switches are often very short and they

are made primarily for social reasons - to signal the speaker’s ethnic identity and solidarity with

the addressee” (Romaine, P. 43).

A switch may also reflect a change in the other dimensions such as the status relations between

people or the formality of their interaction. Different kinds of relationships are often expressed

through different codes. More formal relationships, which sometimes involve status differences

too - such as doctor-patient or administrator-client - are often expressed in the H (high or more

prestigious or standard) variety or code: e.g. when talk to our parents or teachers, we use a

more formal variety of Pushto. People in bilingual or multilingual speech communities, however,

would opt for the more prestigious one, e.g. Spanish in Paraguay. Friendly relationships

involving minimal social distance - such as neighbour or friend are generally expressed in an L

(low or less prestigious) code: e.g. we talk to our friends in a less formal Pushto.

Often, code-switching may also be a result of change in roles.

”In the little village of Hemnesberget Bokmal is the language to use when you go to the tax

office to sort out your tax forms. In the following example, which is a conversation between a

tax-collector and a tax-payer who happen to be neighbours, this phinominon can be easily

registered. BOKMAL IS IN CAPITALS

4
Example:

Jan: Hello Fetter. How is your wife now?

Fetter: Oh she’s much better thank you Jan. She’s out of hospital and convalescing well.

Jan: That’s good I’m pleased to hear it. DO YOU THINK YOU COULD HELP ME WITH

THIS PESKY FORM? I AM HAVING A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY WITH IT.

Fetter. OF COURSE. GIVE IT HERE . . .” (Holmes, P. 32)

Nothing appears to change except the topic of discussion and with it the code. In fact the change

of topic here symbolises a change in the relationship between the men. They switch from their

roles as neighbours to their roles as bureaucrat and member of the public. In other words they

switch from a personal interaction to a more formal transaction. This kind of role switch is

commonly associated with a code switch in multilingual communities.

Bilinguals often find it easier to discuss particular topics in one code rather than another. “For

many bilinguals certain kinds of referential content are more appropriately or more easily

expressed in one language than the other. Japanese war brides in America, for instance, found it

easier to use Japanese for topics they associated with Japan such as ’fish’ and ’New Year’s

Day’” (Holmes, P. 33). Pushto students flatting together in English-speaking countries tend to

use Pushto with each other, except to discuss their studies when they switch to English. This is

partly because they have learned the vocabulary required for their particular subject, such as

economics or linguistics or physics in English, so they do not always know the words for ’capital

5
formation’ or ’morpheme’ or ’electron’ in Pushto. But it goes further than simply borrowing

words from English. They often switch to English for considerable stretches of speech. The

technical topics are firmly associated with a particular code and the topic itself can trigger a

switch to the appropriate code.

Another example of a referentially oriented code switch is when a speaker switches code to

quote a person. In the following example, which has been taken from an imaginary conversation

between an Urdu-speaking professor and his English counterpart, the Urdu-speaking professor

switches codes as he cites a couplet from Iqbal’s poetry to illustrate his point.

Example:

Englishman: Well, Iqbal’s poetry contains certain insightful messages for the youth.

Pakistani: Of course. Take this for example, “TU BAD-E-MOKHALIF SE NA GHABRA AY

OQAB / YE TO URTI HAI TUJHE ONCHA URANE KAY LIA” ….

The switch involves just the words that the speaker is claiming the quoted person said. So the

switch acts like a set of quotation marks. The speaker gives the impression - which may or may

not be accurate - that these are the exact words the speaker used. A related reason for switching

is to quote a proverb or a well-known saying in another language, as in the following example,

where a group of Chinese students are discussing Chinese customs. (The Chinese is in italics.

THE TRANSLATION IS IN CAPITALS.)

Example:

Li: People here get divorce too easily. Like exchanging faulty goods. In China it’s not the same.

Jidgou suigou, jiajl suifi.

6
(IF YOU HAVE MARRIED A DOG, YOU FOLLOW A DOG, IF YOU’VE MARRIED A

CHICKEN, YOU FOLLOW A CHICKEN.) (Romaine, P. 61)

The code switch corresponds exactly to the proverb being recited from Chinese. The similarity of

quotation and proverb recitation is very clear. Both are referentially motivated switches in that

the speaker wishes to be accurate - the exact words are important. But switches often serve

several functions at once. In many instances, the switches not only emphasise the precise

message content, they also signal ethnic identity. In other words they have an affective as well as

a referential function.

Switching for affective functions

People sometimes switch codes for affective functions. For example, I got very few marks in a

test at NUML once and felt unjustifiedly treated by the teacher. While showing my test to her, I

muttered a few words in Pushto under my breath. She was immediately on the defensive and

threatened me with dire consequences, but later, I found to my utmost relief that she not only

took no action against me, but also acknowledged her mistake. In other contexts too switching

between two varieties can achieve a range of interesting rhetorical effects.. Many bilinguals and

multilinguals are adept at exploiting the rhetorical possibilities of their linguistic repertoires.

Urdu is the language of most of the school in Islamabad, for instance, but while they are in class

children may make rude remarks or jokes about the teacher to each other in their mother-tongue..

Sometimes, a person may switch language because he/she is angry. It, for instance, has been

seen that a Pathan often switches to Pushto when he resorts to calling names when provoked into

anger. He does this despite the fact that the opposite party may not know Pushto at all, so the

reason for the switch is clearly not to convey referential content.

7
The following example illustrates a similar code switch between two different styles of English.

Its purpose is to reprimand a child and the switch involves a move from an intimate and friendly

style to a formal style which distances the speaker from the addressee.

Example:

Father. Tea’s ready Robbie. (Robbie ignores him and carries on skate-boarding.)

Father. Mr Robert Harris if you do not come in immediately there will be consequences which

you will regret.

There are certain linguistic features in the above example which signal that Robbie’s father has

switched code between his first and second utterance. They are: the use of title and full name (Mr

Robert Harris) rather than affectionate nickname (Robbie); the very full and formal construction

with a subordinate clause (if ... immediately) preceding the main clause; and the use of a

distancing construction (there will be consequences which you will regret rather than, say, the

more familiar you’ll be sorry). The use of relatively formal vocabulary (e.g. immediately rather

than say now, consequences, regret rather than sorry) (Holmes, P. 36).

Code-mixing or Metaphorical switching

Code mixing is a thematically related term, but the usage of the terms code-switching and code-

mixing varies. “Some scholars use either term to denote the same practice, while others apply

code-mixing to denote the formal linguistic properties of said language-contact phenomena, and

code-switching to denote the actual, spoken usages by multilingual persons” (Wikepedia).

In many of the examples discussed so far the specific reason for a switch can be identified with

reasonable confidence. Though it would not be possible to predict when a switch will occur

8
without knowing what a speaker intended to say next, it is often possible to account for switches

after they have occurred (i.e. post hoc).

Sometimes, a person has to codeswitch because he has to express solidarity with the speakers of

the less prestigious variety, as well as his power by going for the prestigious variety. A

politician, for instance, might address a Pathan gathering on the economic benefits of a certain

project in Pushto to express solidarity with them, as well as intersperse his speech with English

words and phrases (sometimes whole sentences) to show them his knowledge and deep insight.

Pushto symbolises high solidarity, equal status and friendly feelings. English represents social

distance, status and the referential information of the business world. The politician is code-

switching for rhetorical reasons drawing on the associations of both codes. This type of

switching has sometimes been called metaphorical switching.

An example which is quoted by Jan-Petter Blom and John Gumperz arose out of their research in

a town in northern Norway, Hemnesberget, where there is a diglosic situation, with one of the

two standard Norwegian languages (Bokmal) as the High variety and a local dialect, Ranamal, as

the Low one.

In the course of a morning spent at the community administration office, we noticed that clerks

used both standard and dialect phrases, depending on whether they were talking about official

affairs or not. Likewise, when residents step up to a clerk's desk, greeting and inquiries about

family affairs tend to be exchanged in the dialect, while the business part of the transaction is

carried on in the standard. (Blom & Gumperz 1971: 425)

Examples like this show-that speakers are able to manipulate the norms governing the use of

varieties in just the same way as they can manipulate those governing the meanings of words by

using them metaphorically (Hudson, P. 54).

9
Each of the codes represents a set of social meanings, and the speaker draws on the associations

of each, just as people use metaphors to represent complex meanings. The term also reflects the

fact that this kind of switching involves rhetorical skill. Skilful code-switching operates like

metaphor to enrich the communication.

Some people call the kind of rapid switching illustrated in the last two examples ’code-mixing’,

but some sociolinguists prefer the term metaphorical switching. Code-mixing suggests the

speaker is mixing up codes indiscriminately or perhaps because of incompetence, whereas the

switches are very well-motivated in relation to the symbolic or social meanings of the two codes.

This kind of rapid switching is itself a specific sociolinguistic variety. It is a distinctive

conversational style used among bilinguals and multilinguals - a rich additional linguistic

resource available to them. By switching between two or more codes, the speakers convey

affective meaning as well as information.

It is obviously important to distinguish this kind of switching from switches which reflect lack of

vocabulary in a language. When speaking a second language, for instance, people will often use

a term from their mother tongue or first language because they don’t know how to say it in their

second language. These ’switches’ are triggered by lack of knowledge of the vocabulary. People

may also borrow words from another language to express a concept or describe an object for

which there is no obvious word available in the language they are using. “Borrowing of this kind

generally involves single words mainly nouns - and it is motivated by lexical need” . It is very

different from switching where speakers have a genuine choice about which words they will use

in which language.Borrowings often differ from code switches in form too. Borrowed words are

usually adapted to the speaker’s first language. Urdu has borrowed many words from English,

e.g. ‘theatre’, Officer’ and ‘internet’, etc. They are pronounced and used grammatically as if they

10
were part of the speaker’s first language. ‘Theatre’, for instance, is pronounced with a sheep

sound rather than with a diphthong, as is done in English; in ‘officer’ the short /i/ sound is

completely omitted; and in ‘internet’ the stress is made to lay on the final syllable instead of the

first. Similarly, the plurality is marked with Urdu inflections instead of the English (s) or (es). By

contrast, people who are rapidly code-switching - as opposed to borrowing the odd word tend to

switch completely between two linguistic systems - sounds, grammar and vocabulary.

Linguistic constraints

Sociolinguists who study the kind of rapid code-switching described in the previous section have

been interested in identifying not only the functions or meaning of switches but also the points at

which switches occur in utterances. Some believe there are very general rules for switching

which apply to all switching behaviour regardless of the codes or varieties involved. They are

searching for universal constraints on switching. It has been suggested for example that switches

only occur within sentences at points where the grammars of both languages match each other.

So you could only switch between an adjective and a noun if both languages used the same order

for that adjective and noun, as illustrated in the following example.

English: What a beautiful house!

Urdu: KITNA Beautiful GHAR HAI!

Other sociolinguists argue that it is unlikely that there are universal and absolute rules of this

sort. It is more likely that these rules simply reflect the limited data which has been examined so

far. They argue for greater attention to social and contextual factors. The points at which people

switch codes are likely to vary according to many different factors such as which codes are

involved, the functions of the particular switch, and the level of proficiency in each code of the

people switching. So, it is suggested, only very proficient bilinguals will switch within sentences

11
(intra-sentential switching), whereas people who are less proficient will tend to switch at

sentence boundaries, or use only short fixed phrases or tags in one language on the end of

sentences in the other.

It is easy to see how these questions lead to others. What kind of grammar or grammars are

involved when people codeswitch? When people switch rapidly from phrase to phrase for

instance, are they switching between the two different grammars of the codes they are using, or

is there a distinct codeswitching grammar which has its own rules? We don’t yet know the

answers to these questions.

Attitudes to code-switching

Sometimes code-switching may be deliberate and carefully planned, but at times, People may be

unaware of the fact that they code switch. In the later case, when their attention is drawn to this

behaviour, however, most tend to apologise for it, condemn it and generally indicate disapproval

of mixing languages. In Pakistan, ‘broken up’ (Gulabi) Urdu refers to a style which switches

between Urdu and English, or any other variety. Reactions to code-switching styles are negative

in many communities, despite the fact that proficiency in intra-sentential code-switching requires

good control of both codes. This may reflect the attitudes of the majority monolingual group in

places like North America and Britain. In places such as Pakistan where multilingualism is the

norm, attitudes to proficient code-switching are much more positive. The Pakistan bigman’s

status is undoubtedly enhanced by his ability to manipulate two or more codes (especially

English with any other regional or national language) proficiently. It seems possible that an

increase in ethnic self consciousness and confidence may alter attitudes among minority group

members in other communities over time. Attitudes to a minority language are very important in

determining not only its use in a code-switching style, but also its very chances of survival.

12
References:

Crystal, David (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Holmes, Janet (2000) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Longman.

Hudson, Richard A. (1980) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Romaine, Suzanne (1988) Pidgin and Creole Languages. London: Longman.

Romaine, Suzanne (1989) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Trudgill, Peter (1983a) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

13