Vol. 3(6), pp.

194-198, June 2015

DOI: 10.14662/IJELC2015.054 International Journal of English
Copy© right 2015 Literature and Culture
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
ISSN: 2360-7831
http://www.academicresearchjournals.org/IJELC/Index.htm

Review

Linguistic Identities: How Code-switching and/or Code-

crossing help constructing solidarity or otherness in
multilingual societies
Sepideh Hozhabrossadat
Vienna University. E-mail: Sepideh_hozhabrossadat@yahoo.com

Accepted 22 June 2015

Since communication is the most important part of defining and structuring our identities, a recent
phenomenon had emerged which has been called linguistic identities. As the name suggests, there is
no single identity in terms of communication and interaction. The question is how our linguistic
identities are formed; and by what means or linguistic devices we identify ourselves or others. There
are multiple identities that are being constructed, revised and shaped. At first, identity is defined as
being fluid and linguistically motivated. Four models are introduced to link identity construction with
language. Linguistic devices, including code-switching and code-crossing are being defined and further
analyzed into two important sub-devices called positionality and indexicality. In conclusion, human
beings tend to (un)consciously utilize the linguistic devices in multilingual communities to bond or
bind.

Keywords: Linguistic identities, SIT, SAT, HOI, performativity, positionality, indexicality

Cite This Article As: Hozhabrossadat S (2015). Linguistic Identities: How Code-switching and/or Code-
crossing help constructing solidarity or otherness in multilingual societies. Inter. J. Eng. Lit. Cult. 3(6): 194-198

INTRODUCTION

Identity is not a new phenomenon in the field of assiduities. What is meant by individual identity, here, is
Linguistics; yet, Sociolinguistics in general and Cultural how any individual person replies to this question, 'Who
Linguistics in particular have decided to focus primarily am I?', and different concepts one has about oneself,
on this controversial aspect of the human life. In this while facing different situations in life or invoking past
paper, identity is being looked at through the linguistic experiences and memories. It, also, includes inner voices
point of view. For this purpose, the concept of identity and unconscious thoughts. On the other hand, collective
needs to be clarified. Identity is defined by Block (2006: or community identity is about the picture that community
39) as, “ socially constructed, a self-conscious, ongoing at large presents to itself and other communities. De Fina
narrative an individual performs, interprets and projects in (2002: 377) defines this concept as such,
dress, bodily movements, actions and language.” This
poststructuralist definition merges two previously clear- Collective identities have to do with what people
cut categories of individual identity and collective identity, think characterizes them as a group that is
among which the individual has received plenteous different from others. Thus, the shaping of a
 Hozhabrossadat 195

collective image for a social organization reflects communicate efficiently in multilingual communities, one
implicit conceptions about the qualities and traits has to cross the borders of the self and the others by
that are perceived as defining the community. amalgamating these two; hence, one has to create a third
However, collective identity is not a mental space in which differences are negotiated and linguistic
image, but rather an emergent construct that devices are used to solidify or alienate.
takes shape within significant practices. There is
an important connection between being and Identity construction: principles and models
doing, between building and projecting an image
of the group and carrying out certain activities. Sociolinguistics has long been attempting to pinpoint the
exact role of language in identity construction. It is of
Definition of Linguistic Identities great importance to know how exactly the identity of
individual speakers in a special community across time
In this paper, the term „identity construction‟ is used to and space is formed. Recent theories of identity, which
indicate that identity is not a static notion, rather, it is will be discussed below, have been evolved from the idea
seen as an ongoing, never-ending process even at the that there is no change in human behavior with the focus
individual level. The leading edge culture of a society is on the static nature of identity, to more dynamic and
the optimum ground for identity construction. For the interactive ones which address language as the
purpose of clarity, in this paper, the culture is considered immediate cause and result.
the language, which is used by participants in an
interaction. Language changes our identities and our Principles
identities are shaped by different forms we use language.
Our relations and positions in the communities we live The Role of Agency
are defined, to a great extent, through the language we
use. Agency is a key element in the studies of identity
Language is not a fixed concept either. There are many construction in relation to language. To what extent
living languages being spoken by different speakers and individuals are free to make choices and how far they can
what is more, each and every language has its own move across boundaries of language and identity
variations, dialects, slangs, registers. As Ansaldo (2010: structures, which are imposed by society, are among
617) puts it, individual‟s linguistic identities are shaped by crucial questions to be answered. Block (2006: 38)
the “plurality of linguistic codes.” All of these lead to acknowledges that, “identity is an emergent process,
questions such as, how is the identity of a person defined taking place at the crossroads of structure and agency”.
in monolingual, bilingual or multilingual communities and This, in fact, suggests that identity construction is not
to what extent language plays a role in assigning seen as a product of mere ruling structures in society, but
individual memberships in a community of a specific it must be seen as a merger of these structures and
language or giving the role of „otherness‟ to them? social agents.
Linguistic identities may direct individuals into
membership of a community and hence encourage The Role of Consciousness: Subjectivities
solidarity and accommodativeness or lead to their
exclusion; hence the distance and „othering‟ effect. The Linguistic identities are (re) formed at every moment of
author believes that the terms „otherness‟ and „othering‟ interaction in which participants may or may not be
are related to alienating consequences of not belonging conscious at the time of practice. Consciousness relates
to or being a member of a linguistic community. to the level of awareness that each individual has in
What follows in this paper delineate some basic linguistic interactions. In line with this concept, there is
concepts that clarify the most obvious and thought- the notion of Weedon‟s Subjectivity(1997:32) that is
provoking issues in the field of linguistic identities. For the defined by her as the “conscious and unconscious
purpose of specificity, the writer limits the study to thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of
multilingual societies, those in which more than two herself and her ways of understanding her relation in the
languages are used and exist. First, the most relevant world”. The most crucial factor in shaping individual‟s
theories will be introduced, based on a chronological consciousness in a linguistic interaction is experience
order and then they will be compared and contrasted. (Cornejo 2012: 117) and by experience, it is meant, the
Second, the notions of solidarity and otherness will be usage of available linguistic sources in positioning self
discussed in light of their relation to language use and and others on a daily basis.
identity construction. Third, different linguistic devices will
be drawn upon to show how speakers in a multilingual The Role of Ideology
community position themselves and others through
language. Fourth, it will be concluded that, in order to The ideology which is prevalent in a society affects its
196 Inter. J. Eng. Lit. Cult.

language and the way individuals perceive themselves Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT)
and others. This understanding leads individuals into
mapping categories in which they construct their own According to Giles (1977), individuals can consciously
identities, and create or are created by social events. put to use linguistic devices, and as a result, their identity
These structures and linguistic ideologies emerge during in the process of interaction. Individuals have the power
the social interaction via language (Bucholtz & Hall 2005: to join a community and adopt the identity of the group
4). The established ideology in a community determines and at the same time, they can distance themselves from
how meanings are realized and led to identity the community and construct their own individual identity
construction. Structures or “stereotypes” are the and hence, linguistic discourse. These notions are
backbones of our standpoint (Weiguo, 2013: 151). introduced as „convergence‟ and „divergence‟ in SAT.
The former is the (un)conscious tendency of the speaker
to highlight the similarities in interaction, whereas,
Models divergence is the (un)conscious attempt on the part of the
interlocutors to distance themselves from each other
Social identity theory (SIT) (Meyerhoff 2006: 73).

It is a groundbreaking theory that was developed by

Tajfel (1981). This theory is based on the membership of Hierarchy of Identities model (HOI)
individuals in different groups. Individuals tend to keep a
distinct social identity by marking their specific viewpoints Omoniyi (2006: 17) sees identity as a means “in the
through becoming the member of a community. This service of hierarchization.” According to this theory, there
theory in essence, maintains that individuals put aside are different variations of identities, from which, some are
their identity for the one that is the most „salient‟ and prioritized at different moments of reactions. The act of
powerful. In other words, they join the mainstream prioritizing is based on the notion of salience. According
identity and form an in-group identity. Salience is defined to HOI,
by Meyerhoff (2006: 71) as how “ a particular variant is An identification context may comprise one or more
perceived/heard.” Moreover, salience is not totally actions with one or more performance moments. Thus,
predetermined in an interaction; rather, it appears each situation is potentially characterized by multiple
collectively during the interaction. positioning acts in which a cluster of identities are
What tells this theory apart from other theories of invoked and read but each varying in salience. The most
identity, is the element of emotional significance for salient identity option in any one moment of performance
individuals regarding their membership in the group. within a given interactional context is forgrounded
Meyerhoff (ibid: 72) accentuates that “ in order to feel through talk and located therefore at the top of a
good about Us, we need a Them to compare ourselves hierarchy of identities. (Omoniyi 2006: 20)
to” .In terms of how this theory relates to language, one
may argue that since individuals adopt the identity of a Linguistically speaking: Code-switching and Code-
group, the adoption of the language of that group follows. Crossing
This adoption may be in the form of dialect, in-group
slang and jargons, or special registers.
Definitions

Performativity With all the theories above, for an instructional process to

happen, there is always the need for an encoder and a
Butler (1997) proposed yet another challenging theory decoder. While the presence of the last one is a
called Performativity. Butler was mainly concerned with necessity, the presence of the first is not. There are two
the notion of gender, but her theory was expanded to distinct categories in code-switching depending on
cover all identity issues. According to this theory, our whether it is „domain-based‟ or „address-based‟
identity is constantly (re)constructed during our speech (Meyerhoff 2006:116). The former is restrained by where
acts and our activities; and they are not „predetermined the speakers actually are, and the latter points to who the
traits we possess‟. The theory of Performativity has speakers are conversing with.
significant consequences for language, since enacting Rampton (1995: 228) defines code-switching as an “in
identities in any given context necessitate the group behavior,” while he contrasts it with code-crossing
abandoning of acceptable or appropriate ways of which is concerned with “switching into language(s) that
communicating, or in other words going against the are thought not to „belong‟ to the user.” Rampton, who
mainstream and acting on an individual level. introduced the concept of code-crossing, identifies some
differences among the two. In code-switching, the
 Hozhabrossadat 197

speakers can use one or more languages in one single the pronoun „I‟. This may take us to the familiar concept
interaction, but not in code-crossing. Code-crossing of audience design. According Meyerhof (2006: 70),
happens to a stigmatized language. In code-switching, “speakers drive their style shifts to an addressee from the
conventions are not violated, while in the other characteristics that they associate with the speech of the
divergence happen. Last but not least, there is group as a whole. One of the assumed devices in this
dissociation between the speaker and the code in code- regard is hyper-correction, the tendency of the speakers
crossing. (ibid) of a stigmatized variety to converge to the more
In SAT, pitch and speech rate are mentioned among prestigious or dominant dialect. Stewart (2012: 305) adds
phonological aspects of the language choice (Meyerhoff, personal deixis, especially in hedging and asides.
2006: 73). Individuals may decide to speak slowly while
interacting with a non-native person or, they may decide
to speed up in order to create alienating effects. In HOI, Indexicality
seven contexts have been introduced to show how
linguistic devices are used as such. In conversations we One linguistic tendency of all human beings is to label
shift between “ the personal self and the public selves.” and categorize; we tend to index ourselves and others in
An example is given from Politicians, when they linguistic interactions. One familiar example is the use of
constantly change from „we‟ to „I‟.In personal narratives, adjectives and presuppositions. As an example, we tend
like life histories, individuals often change their to normalize our thoughts and implicatures by using
“orientations”. In political speeches, we witness the use of antonyms like „good‟ or „bad‟. Bucholtz and Hall (2005)
“embedded structures.” This happens when an individual hold that, “an index is a linguistic form that depends on
draw on multiple identities in terms of address. In the interactional context for its meaning ” and
commentaries, “use of marked solidarity forms in the furthermore, they delineated the below linguistic means
media and sports commentaries in which objectivity and through which identity is constructed in discourse,
neutrality are expected.” In trades and commercial Identity relations emerge in interaction through several
contexts, there is a switch from language A to language B related indexical processes, including: (a) overt mention
or to a language which is comprehensible for both of identity categories and labels; (b) implicatures and
parties. In musical contexts, the codes are crossed to presuppositions regarding one‟s own or others‟ identity
achieve the acceptability criteria. Last but not least, in position; (c) displayed evaluative and epistemic
“community narratives and claims”, to establish orientations to ongoing talk, as well as interactional
hereditary assertions, the folk language and terminology footings and participant roles; and (d) the use of linguistic
are used. (Meyerhoff, 2006: 29-30) structures and systems that are ideologically associated
These linguistic strategies may lead to the solidarity or with specific personas and groups. (ibid: 594)
the distancing effect in a linguistic community. Some In multilingual communities, this indexicality principle
codes may be used to signal the membership or in-group can bring about both advantages and disadvantages.
unanimity, while others may be used to (un)intentionally This process may have significant drawbacks for those
dissociate with the out-groups; these can be represented speakers whose dialect or language variations are
as “we code/they code distinction” (Cashman & Williams deemed as inferior. What is more, speakers may opt for
2008:2). indexing just one facet of their linguistic identities in social
interactions (Dyer 2007:106) Settling upon special
features of one‟s language(s) indicate the “intentional
Devices: positioning and indexicality modification” of the individual self or others (Ige 2010:
3049)
Positioning

Closely related to the concept of Subjectivity is the CONCLUSION

positioning method in creating the notions of the self and
the otherness. Stewart (2012:317) upholds that these Any given construction of identity may be in part
strategies are used to “ bind and bond, to construct deliberate and intentional, in part habitual and hence
identities and delimitate different groups.” Whether often less than fully conscious, in part an outcome of
participants choose to be formal language users or others‟ perceptions and representations, an in part an
informal ones depend on the situation of the interaction effect of larger ideological processes and material
and the position they may consciously or unconsciously structures that may become relevant to interaction
take. One may even decide to use both the formal and (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004:376)
the informal in one single social interaction. It is even It has already been stated that linguistic (cultural)
more than the formality criteria, since there are other differences give rise to diverse linguistic identities. With a
positioning devices like using marked sentences or using view to this we have to be aware of a the fact that there
198 Inter. J. Eng. Lit. Cult.

are not one, but many realities as there are many Fina, Anna de. 2007.“ Code-switching and the
linguistic identities. Although Individuals keep their own construction of ethnic identity in a
linguistic identities during a conversation or interaction, community of practice”. Language in Society 36, 371–
they mutually create a third space in which all the 392.
available linguistic repertoires act and interact to Giles, Howard. 1977. Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup
converge or diverge, depending on the positionality Relations. New York: Academic Press.
principle. In this third space we are “compelled to stop the Ige, Busayo. 2010. “Identity and language choice: „We
flux of becoming in order to interact with one another” equals I‟”. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 3047–3054.
(Monceri 2009: 52). To use Cruddas‟s words(2007:486), Dyer, Judy.2007. “Language and identity ”. In LIamas,
in this third world, individuals can “create new ways of Carmen; Mullany, Louise; Stockwell, Peter
being”. (eds.).The Routledge companion to sociolinguistics.
London: Routledge, 101-8.
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2006. Introducing sociolinguistics.
REFERENCES New York: Routledge.
Monceri, Flavia. 2009. “The transculturing self II.
Ansaldo, Umberto. 2010. “Identity alignment and Constructing identity through identification”. Language
language creation in multilingual communities”. and Intercultural Communication 9:1. London:
Language Sciences 32, 615-623. Routledge, 43-53.
Block, David. 2006. “Identity in applied linguistics”. In Noor, M., Anwar, B., Muhabat, F. & Kazemian, B. (2015).
Omoniyi, Tope; White, Goodith (eds.). The Code-Switching in Urdu Books of Punjab Textbook
Sociolinguistics of Identity. London: Continuum 34-49. Board, Lahore, Pakistan. Communication & Linguistics
Bucholtz, Mary; Hall, Kira. 2004.“Language and identity”. Studies, 1(2), 13-20.
In Duranti, A. (ed.). A companion to Linguistic Omoniyi, Tope. 2006. “Hierarchy of identities”. In
Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell, 369-94. Omoniyi, Tope; White, Goodith (eds.). The
Bucholtz, Mary; Hall, Kira. 2005. “Identity and interaction: Sociolinguistics of Identity. London: Continuum 11-34.
a sociocultural linguistic approach”. Discourse Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity
Studies 7 (4-5). London: Thousand Oaks, 585-614. among Adolescents. London: Longman.
Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Stewart, Miranda. 2012. “A cross-cultural approach to the
Performative. London: Routledge. negotiation of individual and group identities:
Cashman, Holly, R.; Williams, Ashley M. 2008.“ parliamentary debates and editorial meetings”.
Introduction: Accomplishing identity in bilingual Language and Intercultural Communication 12:4.
interaction”. Multilingual 27, 1-12. London: Routledge, 302-320.
Cornejo, Carlos. 2012. “Contrasting Vygotsky‟s and Tajfel, Henry. 1981. Human Groups and Social
Bakhtin‟s approaches to consciousness”. Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culture & Psychology 18(1), 109–120. Weedon, Chris. 1997. Feminist Practices and
Cruddas, Leora. 2007. “Engaged voices - dialogic Postructuralist Theory. (2nd edition). Oxford:
interaction and the construction of shared social Blackwell.
meanings”. Educational Action Research 15 (3), 479- Weiguo, Qu. 2013.“ Dehistoricized cultural identity and
488. cultural offering”. Language and Intercultural
Communication 13:2. London: Routledge, 148-164.