Students’ Research

Global Media Journal – Indian Edition/ISSN 2249-5835

Sponsored by the University of Calcutta/ www.caluniv.ac.in
Winter Issue / June 2012 Vol. 3/No.2

C ODE-SWITCHING AS A C OMMUNICATIVE STRATEGY IN C ONVERSATION

Basudha Das
Project Linked Person
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Unit (CVPR)
Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
Website: http://www.isical.ac.in
Email: basudha1983@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Code-switching, which may be defined as the alternation between two or more
languages in a speaker’s speech, occurs naturally in the speech of bilinguals. According to
some studies, code-switching often happens subconsciously; people may not be aware of the
fact that they have switched, or be able to report, following a conversation, which code they
used for a particular topic (Wardaugh, 1998, p. 103). Bilingual speakers claim that code-
switching is an unconscious behavior, but researches have shown that it is not a random
phenomenon. As attested by Li Wei (1998, p. 156). Code-switching is seen as a purposeful
activity. There are functions and intentions assigned to this behavior (Gumperz, 1971;
Myers-Scotton, 1983; 1988; 1989, Hoffman, 1991). Based on this assumption, this paper
investigates how code-switching is used as a strategy to achieve the communicative intents
and serve certain functions in a conversation. The language a community speaks is part of its
culture and so few changes in language occur unless there are prior changes in culture. This
usually occurs when two communities, living side by side, interact by exchanging ideas, tools,
methods, cultural behaviors (Alicja Witalisz 2011). This is the case of linguistic globalization
and as it is a growing trend in the modern world, most of the world’s speech communities are
multilingual in nature. In language contact situations, code-switching between different
language codes has become a very common and inevitable consequence in everyday lives of
most people. Here this paper will demonstrate how code-switching functions as a
communicative strategy to reduce language barriers as well as to manifest cultural identity.
This study will prove that code-switching is a versatile strategy to meet the complex
communicative demands between or within the interlocutors. In order to explain and clarify
how code-switching is used as a communicative strategy, a few examples are given in
reference to the speech of Bangla-English bilingual speakers.

KEYWORDS: code-switching, discourse functions, communication strategy, communication

accommodation theory, convergence, divergence.

1
1. INTRODUCTION

Speakers of more than one language (e.g., bilinguals) have the ability to code-switch or mix
their languages during communication. While speaking, they use more than one language
simultaneously, and switches from one to another very easily and effortlessly. This is the
most common phenomenon in the speech of bilingual or multilingual speakers. The
bilinguals substitute a word or phrase from one language with a phrase or word from another
language in the same sentence. Sometimes a full sentence can be in one language while the
next one is in the other. But code-switching must follow certain grammatical rules and one
cannot switch from one language to other at any points in the discourse. Following example
will make it clear. Where and how one would be able to switch his codes is under
consideration and the subject matter of many researches but for the purpose of this paper, we
will not concentrate on those conditions. Here we will only discuss how this phenomenon is
used by bilingual speakers as an effective strategy to achieve certain objectives.

(1) I want a car rouge. (rouge ‘red’)

(2) I want a rouge car. (rouge ‘red’)

In these sentences, the English word “red” is replaced with its French equivalent. A
noteworthy aspect of sentence (1) above is that the French adjective “rouge” follows a
grammatical rule that is observed by most bilingual speakers that code-switch. Thus,
according to the specific grammatical rule-governing sentence (1) above, sentence (2) would
be incorrect because language switching can occur between an adjective and a noun, only if
the adjective is placed according to the rules of the language of the adjective. In this case, the
adjective is in French; therefore, the adjective must follow the French grammatical rule that
states that the noun must precede the adjective (Roberto R. Heredia, 1997).

In a multilingual society, each language uniquely fulfills certain roles and represent distinct
identities, and all of them complement one another to serve “the complex communicative
demands of a pluralistic society” (Sridhar, 1996, p. 53). Traditionally, it is believed that code-
switching functions as a strategy to compensate for diminished language proficiency. The
2
belief behind this theory is that bilinguals code-switch because they do not know either
language completely. This argument is also known as semi-lingualism (Roberto R. Heredia,
1997). However, one thing should be admitted that the notion of language proficiency is not
clearly defined. It is not clear whether reading and writing language skills should be taken
into consideration as much as the spoken language. This reliance on reading and writing is
problematic because most bilinguals receive their formal education in one language, whereas
a majority of their social interactions take place in the other language. So, when their reading
and writing abilities are tested in both languages, it is quite expected that the language in
which bilinguals received formal education will usually fare better.

Adendorff’s (1966) view is contrary to the notion that code-switching is a comprehension for
a linguistic deficit in bilingual speakers. According to him, code-switching is ‘functionally
motivated’ (p.389) behaviour. If code-switching is functionally motivated, then a study that
investigates the functions of code-switching occurring in a particular bilingual or multilingual
society will be meaningful. As language of a certain speech community is closely related to
the cultural practices of that community and since language and culture influence each other,
language behaviours of the speakers are influenced by the cultural aspects. A small change in
the cultural aspects will obviously bring corresponding changes in the languge to account for
those concepts. That is why the purposes, functions of code choices and code-switching
varies in different cultures, language communities, or by different social situations.
Therefore, this paper aims to illustrate a general overview about the intents of switchers and
what is gained by communicating with code-switch.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In addition to Gumperz’s work on bilingual discourse strategies, many studies (Poplack,

1980; McClure, 1981; Gumperz, 1982; Bialystok, 1983; Fœrch & Kasper, 1983; Tarone,
1983; Myers-Scotton, 1993; Milroy & Muysken, 1995; Romaine, 1995) have revealed that
bilingual speakers use CS as a valuable linguistic strategy to achieve certain communicative
goals. This illustrates that CS is far from being a language deficit.

3
2.1. Poplack (1980:581) states that ‘CS proceeds from that area of the bilingual’s grammar
where the surface structures of L1 and L2 overlap, and that CS, rather than representing
debasement of linguistic skill, is actually a sensitive measurement of bilingual ability’.
Poplack (1980: 596) attributes a variety of functions to her informants’ use of CS. She also
recognizes (Ibid 608) that other extralinguistic factors such as sex, age of L2 acquisition
contribute to the occurrences of CS.

2.2. Gumperz (1982: 75-80) addresses particular social functions for the use of CS. His work
is very influential and many researches have been done in different languages on the basis of
his theory of functions of CS. He identifies six basic discourse functions that code switching
plays in conversation: quotations, addressee specification, interjections, reiteration, message
qualification, and personalization versus objectivization. In quotations, code switching
occurs to report someone else’s utterance as direct quotations. In addressee specification, the
switch serves to direct the message to one particular person among several addressees.
Interjections serve to mark sentence fillers. Reiterations occur when the speaker repeats the
message in the other code. It clarifies what has been said or increases the utterance’s
perlocutionary effect. Message qualification is the elaboration of the preceding utterance in
the other code. Lastly, personification versus objectivization indicates the degree of speaker
involvement in what is being said. quotations, addressee specification, interjections,
reiteration, and message qualification.

2.3. Bialystok (1983: 100) discusses the implementation of various communication strategies
employed by non-native speakers (NNSs) including language switching (CS), foreignising
native language, and transliteration. She claims that the best strategies “are those which are
based in the target language and take account of the specific features of the intended concept”
and that “the best strategy users are those who have adequate formal proficiency in the target
language and are able to modify their strategy selection to account for the nature of the
specific concept to be conveyed” (Bialystok 1983: 116).

4
2.4. Fœrch & Kasper (1983) discussed the fact that CS can also be a sign of production
difficulties in the target language. Speaking a second language can present problems in
speech production which can lead to avoidance or reduction strategies or, alternatively,
achievement strategies (1983: 37). Avoidance strategies include formal reduction strategies,
that is, a reduced system (phonological, morphological, syntactic or lexical) in order to avoid
producing non-fluent or incorrect utterances, and functional reduction strategies, which may
include modal reduction, reduction of propositional content through topic avoidance, message
abandonment or meaning replacement (Fœrch & Kasper 1983: 52). With achievement
strategies, the speaker tries to expand his communicative resources with the use of
compensatory strategies, which include code-switching, interlingual transfer, interlanguage
based strategies (generalization, paraphrase, word coinage, restructuring) co-operative
strategies and non-linguistic strategies.

2.5. Tarone (1983) raises a discussion on what a communications strategy is. She
distinguished between sociolinguistic competence and communication strategies, arguing that
communication strategies “are used to compensate for some lack in the linguistic system, and
focus on exploring alternate ways of using what one does not know for the transmission of a
message, without necessarily considering situational appropriateness” (Tarone 1983: 64),
whereas with sociolinguistic competence it is assumed that there is a shared knowledge, of
the social norms between the interlocutors. He proposes (Tarone 1983: 65) the following
criteria when defining a communication strategy:

1) A speaker desires to communicate a meaning X to a listener.

2) The speaker believes the linguistic or sociolinguistic structure desired to
communicate meaning X is unavailable, or is not shared with the listener.
3) The speaker chooses to:
a) Avoid – not attempt to communicate meaning X, or
b) Attempt alternate means to communicate meaning X. The speaker stops trying
alternatives when it seems clear to the speaker that there is shared meaning.

5
2.6. Myers-Scotton (1993), with her markedness model of CS, states that speakers make
choices because they are able to consider the social consequences of these choices. Under this
model CS occurs due to one of four motivations: 1) CS as a sequence of unmarked choices;
2) CS itself as the unmarked choice; 3) CS as a marked choice; and 4) CS as an exploratory
choice.

2.7. Two comparatively recent publications, Milroy and Muysken (1995) and Auer (1998),
both collected editions, present many articles on the intricacies of CS and borrowing,
containing structural approaches, sociolinguistic standpoints or then articles that investigate
the notions of power and negotiation in bilingual conversations.

3. DISCUSSION

This section gives an elaborate description of speakers’ use of code-switching as a personal

communication strategy. It attempts to explain how speakers organize and enrich their speech
through code-switching and how they use it as a tricky strategy to fulfill certain objectives
such as signaling social relationships and language preferences, obviating difficulties,
framing discourse, contrasting personalization and objectification, conveying cultural -
expressive message, giving special effect to some key words of the utterance, lowering
language barriers, maintaining appropriateness of context, and reiterating messages (Ariffin,
2009). The following study will show these findings.

3.1. Code-switching as a strategy to minimize or emphasize social differences among the

interlocutors

One can use code-switching as a tool to indicate the social relationships between the
interlocutors. The speakers may code switch either to hide the gap in their rank or position in
the society or to manifest his power and apply it on the other participant. When people
interact, they adjust their speech, their vocal patterns and their gestures, to accommodate to
others (Howard Giles 1971). It explores the various reasons why individuals emphasize or
6
minimize the social differences between themselves and their interlocutors (those with whom
they are communicating) through verbal and non-verbal communication. There are two main
accommodation processes. Convergence refers to the strategies through which individuals
adapt to each other’s communicative behaviors, in order to reduce these social differences.
Meanwhile, Divergence refers to the instances in which individuals accentuate the speech and
non-verbal differences between themselves and their interlocutors. In other words, it can be
said that by convergence, the speaker levels his rank with the other participant and by
divergence; he shows his power or authority over the other participant. For example, in
Bangla-English bilingual context, if two friends are talking in English between them and they
get on a public bus, they are most likely to switch to Bangla while offering the bus fare to the
conductor. And they will switch their code of communication in order to show equal
relationship between them and the participant of different status, age, and familiarity and
level their rank with the middleclass Bangla speaking people. This is the case of convergence
which they adapt to achieve their communicative objective.

On the other hand, the following example will show that the speaker (principal investigator)
code switch to manifest power over the listeners (research fellows). In the following example,
the speaker switches to English to scold her students and thus changes (lines 1,2) to scolding
frame (lines 3,4).

(3)PI: 1 tomra jodi kajTa bujhtei na paro tahole kajTa korbe kikore?
‘you’ ‘if’ ‘work’ ‘understand’ NEG MOD ‘then’ ‘work’ ‘do’ ‘how’
2 Prothom din theke bolchi be serious,
‘first’ ‘day’ ‘from’ ‘saying’
3 but I do not know why you are not listening to me!!
4 ebhabe cholle I will have to stop the project.
‘this way’ ‘goes’
‘If you do not understand the work, how will you do? From the very first day, I am repeatedly
telling you to be serious about the job but I don’t know why you are not listening to me, if it
goes like this, I will have to terminate the project’.

7
The data can be analysed as evidence in illustrating the existence of power between the
participants in the context of interaction. The speaker switched from the language of
interaction (Bangla) to English in order to establish her authority and power over the other
participants. Here it is the case of divergence. Here the principal investigator clearly marks a
demarcation of power and status between her and the subordinates by using code-switching
strategically.

3.2. Code-switching as a strategy to signal language preference

Researches have shown that speakers have a tendency to code-switch whenever they meet the
difficulty related to lexical gaps and to overcome this problem, they prefer to switch to
another language to continue the free flow of conversation. The following example will
demonstrate this. Speakers maintained the English terminology for technical jargons and
referential terms rather than using the Bangla equivalence. The analysis shows that such
maintenance arises mainly because, the speaker is more habituated in using those words in
the foreign language English, or he received his education in English, or he can comprehend
the terms in English more easily compared to the corresponding Bangla terms, and the
availability of the English terms in the speakers’ linguistic repertoire (Ariffin, 2009).

The following example will show that here the speaker not only switched his code due to lack
of vocabulary, but also he switched from Bangla to English as in some cases he chooses to
use English as a language of preference.

(4)Teacher: 1 conjunct verbs EkTa biSeSSo ar EkTa kriya pOd niye goThito hOy
‘a’ ‘subject’ ‘and’ ‘a’ ‘verb’ ‘with’ ‘constructed’
2 kintu compound verb er khetre ei noun er poribOrte EkTa main
‘but’ ‘GEN-marker’ ‘in case of’ ‘DET’ ‘instead of’ ‘a’
3 verb thake ar EkTa auxiliary verb. Main verb nonfinite hOy ar auxiliary
‘be’ ‘and’ ‘a’ ‘be’ ‘and’
4 verb er Sathei tense, aspect, mood er ending- gulo lage.
‘GEN-marker’ ‘with’ ‘PL. ending’ ‘get attached’
8
‘Conjunct verbs are composed of a noun and a verb but in case of compound verb, there is no
noun and instead of that, there we find a main verb that is nonfinite and an auxiliary verb
which is finite and tense, aspect, mood endings are attached to it’.

As can be seen from the excerpt2, the speaker’s use of English referential terms such has
‘noun’ (line 2) and verb (lines 1, 2, 3, 4) was not because of the lack or unfamiliar terms in
Bangla. The Bangla equivalence, ‘biSeSSo’ (line 1) and ‘kriya pOd’ (line 1) occurred in his
speech. However, it seemed that the English version was preferred as the words ‘noun’ and
‘verb’ were used more compared to ‘biSeSSo’ and ‘kriya pOd’. Romaine (1995, p. 143)
points out that,
Although it is popularly believed by bilingual speakers themselves that they
mix or borrow because they do not know the term in one language or another,
it is often the case that switching occurs most often for items which people
know and use in both languages. The bilingual just has a wider choice – at
least when he or she is speaking with bilingual speakers. In effect, the entire
second language system is at the disposal of the code-switcher.

3.3. Code-switching as a strategy to obviate difficulties

Code-switching is not always random. Speakers seem to code-switch at points where he does
not readily find out the correct referential terms in one language, and he does it to obviate
difficulties that ruin the continuity of the utterance. The following excerpt will help us to
understand the point. Here the speaker switches to English to obviate difficulties in finding
the correct equivalent form in his first language i.e. Bangla. It may be due to habitual use of
the English equivalent terms in daily life.

(5) Speaker: 1 ami to dekhei Obak hoye gechilam, erOkom ga chaRa bhab
‘I’ ‘PRT’ ‘see’ ‘surprised’ ‘be’ ‘PAST’ ‘such’ ‘carefree’ ‘behaviour’
2 ki kore hOy…mane bokar mOto…okay I mean idiotically carefree.
‘how’ ‘be’…’means’ ‘foot’ ‘like’
3 bEparTa bhiSon..(pause)..mmm…shocking.
9
 ‘matter’ ‘very’
‘I was surprised to see that, how one could have such carefree bahaviour? I mean like a
stupid…I mean idiotically carefree. The incident was very shocking’

The excerpt3 illustrates evidence that the speaker felt that he faced difficulties in finding the
right referential term in Bangla to express his thought for the noun phrase ‘idiotically
carefree’ (line 2) and the word ‘shocking’ (line 3). The fillers ‘mane’ [I mean] (line 2), and
‘mmm’ (line 3) show that he was looking for the appropriate word to express what exactly he
was thinking of the matter. And when after trying, he could not find out the equivalent word
in Bangla that was causing unexpected delay in conversation, by uttering okay (line 2) he
expresses that he had stopped looking for the right word in Bangla. Thus, he decided to stick
to the English term as he felt that it was more comprehensible than the Bangla corresponding
term and thought that the English term would obviate all confusion.

3.4. Code-switching as a strategy to frame discourse

It is important for the speaker to make hearer give him the opportunity to finish what he
wants to say and for this purpose he needs to hold the attraction and patience of the hearer till
he ends up. So another important function of code-switching is to attract and hold listeners’
attention. This is commonly done by framing the discourse with the use of conjunctions like
‘so’ and ‘then’, and routines like ‘well’, ‘ok’ and ‘alright’. “According to Koike (1987), this
type of code-switching normally occurs at boundaries as an intensifying strategy to
emphasize the utterance, hold the listeners’ attention and move the action forward” (Ariffin,
2009). The following excerpt will show how CS is a strategy to frame discourse.

(6) Speaker: 1 age pORaTa SeS kOr, then amra ghurte jabo. ar aj rate
‘before’ ‘study’ ‘finish’ ‘we’ ‘go for walk’ ‘and’ ‘today’ ‘night’
2 baire khabo…(pause)..well, Amar aro Onek plan ache,
‘outside’ eat –FUT’ ‘I’ ‘more’ ‘many’ ‘have’
3Segulo surprise….so..(pause) gan na Sune taratari poRte ja.
‘those’ ‘song’ ‘NEG’ ‘listen’ ‘soon’ ‘study’ ‘go’
10
‘At first you finish your study. Then we will go outside, and tonight we will have our dinner
outside. Well, I have a few plans more, those are surprise..so stop listening to music and go to
study’.

Here, a father is trying to draw his 14-year old daughter’s attention to her study, and to make
her feel interested in it, he baits her to take her out for dinner. Father is switching his code as
an effective strategy to make her interest grow into the matter. As can be seen from the
excerpt 4, the body of the speech was in Bangla, framed by the English conjunction, ‘so’ (line
3), ‘then’ (line 1), and ‘well’ (line 2). The switches occurred at the places where the speaker
needed to capture the hearer’s attention to make him feel interested into the matter.

3.5. Code-switching as a strategy to contrast personalization and objectification

Code-switching may also be employed to show a contrast between personalization and

objectification (Kamisah Ariffin & Shameem Rafik-Galea, 2009). From our data, it is seen
that a speaker uses different languages in talking about his or her personal feelings and
describing facts or objectives. When the person is supposed to speak in English in a formal
situation, he describes the fact in English but when he expresses something showing personal
opinion or feelings over the matter, he switches to his first language i.e. Bangla. This can be
illustrated in the following example.

(7) Trainer: 1Tomorrow the exam will start at 12 p.m. and you
2 will have to reach by 11:30. And if any one of you come late,
3don’t expect me to allow you in the examination hall
4 Ami kintu kauke Dhukte debona
‘I’ ‘but’ ‘none’ ‘enter’ ‘allow’
5You have to be punctual
‘I will not allow anyone to enter’.

11
It can be said that the Trainer used English when describing the timings of examination i.e. in
objective-related utterance (lines 1, 2, 3, 5) and Bangla for the utterance that involved
personal feelings which expresses his strictness and disciplinary attitude (line 5).

3.6. Code-switching as strategy to convey cultural-expressive message

Society differs from one another in their culture and the relevant speech community uses
certain specific terms for those cultural expressions which cannot be translated into another
language. These cultural expressions uniquely belong to a particular language and a speaker
native to those cultural customs and expressions face difficulty in expressing the in another
language. For this purpose he decides to use his native terms even while talking in some
foreign language. Speakers often switch from the language of interaction when it comes to
cultural expressions as they feel that the language will not be able to convey the intended
meaning.

(8) Speaker1: 1 I am sorry as I won’t be able to come home to celebrate bijOya

‘a festival’
2 with you all. My exams are ahead. I will miss you a lot mom. How is
3 kakima? Convey my pranam
‘aunty’ ‘greetings’
Speaker2: 4 okay but won’t you even come on Rik’s OnnopraSon?
‘a ritual’
Speaker1: 5 yes, definitely I will come. Okay I have to go now. I will call
6 you later. Bye

Here Bengali native speakers are having a conversation over phone, who are conversing
exclusively in English and to refer to certain concepts attached with Bengalee society, the
speakers switch their code to Bangla. The concept of ‘bijaya’ is an inseparable festival in the
cultural and social life of Bengalee people. Its use by the speaker1 (line 1) is a typical
utterance for this purpose and it is uttered consciously as this concept cannot be expressed in
the foreign language (English). As this concept is not a part of the foreign culture, the speaker
12
was bound to switch from English to Bangla. Similarly, the speaker purposely used the term
‘kakima’ (line 3) because in Bengali society, the wife of uncle is called ‘kakima’ but in
English it is aunty and the same term is used to indicate mother’s sister, as well as father’s
sister. And these three persons are being indicated by three different terms in Bangla, so the
speaker used the term in Bangla to make the hearer understand actually whom she is talking
about. Again in line 3, the speaker uses the term ‘pranam’ (to touch the elder’s feet to ask for
blessings) which is a cultural norm in Benglaee society. So this thing could not be said by
using any English term. The term ‘annaprashan’ (line 4) was used to refer to a particular
cultural norm and there is no equivalent word for this in English, so the speaker had to use
this term to convey the cultural-expressive message.

3.7. Code-switching as a strategy to dramatize keywords

Speakers also code-switch very strategically to bring a dramatic effect, in order to attract the
listeners’ attention. This special effect can be achieved through the use of inventive
expression. The following excerpt shows that the inventive expression occurs in the form of
language play. It mainly happens in the friend circle (age limit 16-30 years approximately)
when speaking informally. It is more a fashion than a real need to switch codes. This type of
switching is not very usual; rather it seems to refute the conventional rules and beliefs of
code-switching. But still, this type of switching succeeds in bringing a special effect in
utterance which most commonly the young generation uses to make their speech more
charming and stylish.

(9) Speaker: 1 I have to go home early today otherwise I will face a lot of jhamelas
‘problems’
2 I am leaving. TaTas
‘good-bye’
‘I will face a lot of problems. Bye’.
(Chorus): (laugh)

13
The speaker’s invention of the word ‘jhamelas’ (line 1) and ‘TaTas’ (line 2), which were the
pluralisms of the Bangla words ‘jhamela’ (problem) and ‘TaTa’ (goodbye) respectively into
English by adding‘s’, had a dramatic effect on the listeners. The listeners understood and
accepted this kind of switching and they reacted accordingly by appreciating the language
play with their laughter.

3.8. Code-switching as a strategy to lower language barriers

“Studies have shown that speakers accommodate and take into account other interlocutors’
linguistic factors in designing their speech (Giles & Smith, 1979; Bell, 1984; Giles, Coupland
& Coupland, 1991)” (Ariffin, 2009). Speakers may increase or decrease the social distance
between the interlocutors by changing the style of his language use, thus he diverge or
converge his speech accordingly to accommodate the other interlocutors for effective
communication. The following excerpt will show that code-switching is employed as a
strategy to lower the language barriers between the speaker and the audience. The hearer was
more fluent and competent in English compared to Bangla. The speaker, on the other hand,
was competent in both English and Bangla. The following example will show how the
speaker maintained to speak in Bangla and still made the hearer understand it by uttering the
main informative words in English. Here the speaker used code-switching very tactfully and
strategically to manage the difference in their levels of language competence in Bangla and
English. Code-switching was, thus, seen as device to ensure understanding where she
switched only at the topic-related words such as ‘picnic’, ‘meet’, ‘sharp at 8 a.m.’ (line 1),
‘by train’, ‘night stay’ (lines 2).

(10) Speaker: 1 kal amra picnic e jabo. Meet kora hObe sharp at 8 a.m.
‘tomorrow’ ‘we’ ‘LOC-marker’ ‘go-FUT’ ‘will happen’
2 by train jabo ar night stay kOra hObena.
‘go’ ‘and’ ‘will not happen’
‘Tomorrow we will go to picnic. We will meet sharp at 8 a.m. We will go by train and we
won’t stay at night’.

14
3.9. Code-switching as a strategy to maintain the appropriateness of context

In our data, the following example expresses the concept of switching which is similar to
Blom and Gumperz’s (1972) concept of situational switching. The following excerpt shows
that the teacher switched her language to answer a particular expression used by her students
and she indulged this switching in order to maintain the appropriateness to the context.

(11) Teacher: 1 How are you students? How was the vacation?
Student: 2 Subho nObobOrSo madam, we are fine
‘happy new year’
Teacher: 3 oh yes Subho nObobOrSo.
‘happy new year’
4 Tell me how you celebrated.
‘Student: Happy New year …Teacher: Happy New Year’

Like many other societies, in Bengalee society also, it is the practice that when someone
greets a person, it is compulsory for that person to give his or her reply. Bengalee people
greet with ‘Shubho noboborsho’ when Bangla New Year comes. On this day the English
phrase ‘Happy New Year’ is not used. And it is also known that this Bangla greeting should
be replied with the same utterance. This is also seen in the excerpt mentioned above, the
teacher was talking in English but whenever her students greeted her ‘Shubho noboborsho’,
she could not reply their greetings in English, instead, she switched her language of
interaction to Bangla in her reply to the student’s Bangla greeting as it was the most
appropriate thing to do. A Bengalee will not answer it in another language as it will not be
appropriate, it will seem absurd.

3.10. Code-switching as a strategy to reiterate messages

Sometimes it is seen that the speaker feels it necessary to repeat a particular message for
certain reasons, either to express its importance, or to make it clearly understood to the
hearer. But to repeat the same thing in the same language makes it quite monotonous to hear.
15
To make the utterance listen well, the speaker, most of the times, repeats it in another
language to give it a special importance and effect. Not only to mark the importance of the
utterance what has been already said earlier, but also to disambiguate a particular
pronunciation, code-switching can be used strategically to reiterate messages.

(12) Officer: 1 After one year, it will be automatically deducted from your
2 Savings account, the interest rate is thirteen percent mane tEro percent
‘thirteen’

On the basis of the analysis of this example, it can be said that the speaker repeated the
phrase ‘thirteen percent’ (line 2) in order to ensure mutual understanding among the listeners.
As a member of the Bangla speech community himself, the speaker was aware of the fact that
Bengalee speakers normally have a problem in differentiating between short and long vowels,
because Bangla does not have short and long vowels phonetically. Though both types are
present in spellings, but they are pronounced in the same way. So it is a common mistake that
people very often confuse between ‘thirteen’ and ‘thirty’ because both are pronounced almost
similary by native Bangla speakers. Thus, by reiterating the word ‘thirteen’ with ‘tEro’ the
speaker was making sure that everybody in the context of the interaction understood it as
‘thirteen’ not ‘thirty’.

4. CONCLUSION

So, all the excerpts shown in this article have shown that code-switching behavior is not
random and code-switching is also not always a sign of linguistic deficiency or inadequacy.
Rather, it is “a negotiation between language use and the communicative intents of the
speakers” (Ariffin, 2009). The speaker employs this code-switching as an effective strategy to
achieve these communicative intents. It is the most effective strategic tool which the speaker
uses to express exactly what message he wants to convey and how. The speaker may not only
need to convey the referential meanings of the words which he utters in his utterance, but also
to accomplish different intents mentioned in this article. According to Myers-Scotton (1995),

16
the choices that a speaker makes in using a language are not just choices of content, but are
‘discourse strategies’ (p. 57).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I want to thank Dr. Aditi Ghosh for her sincere help and guidance. I also thank my family and
friends for inspiring me.

ABBREVIATION

GEN ‘Genitive marker’

PL ‘Plural’
DET ‘Determiner’
NEG ‘Negative’
MOD ‘Modal’
PAR ‘Particle’
PAST ‘Past tense’
FUT ‘Future tense’
LOC ‘Locative case ending’

Reference

Adendorff, R. (1996). The functions of code-switching among high school teachers and
students in KwaZulu and implications for teacher education. In K. Biley & D. Nunan (eds.).
Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education. pp.
388-406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ariffin Kamisah & Shameem Rafik-Galea. (2009). Code-switching as a Communication

Device in Conversation. Malaysia.

17
Auer, P. (ed.) (1998) Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity.
London: Routledge.

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13: 145-204.

Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication

strategies. In Færch, C. & G. Kasper (eds.). 100-118.

Blom, J. P. & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Codeswitching

in Norway. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 407-434).
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Færch, C. & G. Kasper (eds) (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London:

Longman.

Færch, C. & G. Kasper (1983) “Plans and strategies in foreign language communication.” In
Færch, C. & G. Kasper (eds.) (1983). 20-60.

Fotos, S. (1990). Japanese-English code switching in bilingual children. JALT Journal, 12,
75-98.

Giles, H. & Smith, P. M. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In

H. Giles and R. N. St Clair (eds.). Language and Social Psychology. . pp. 45-65. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.

Giles, H., Coupland, N., Coupland, J. (Eds).(1991) Contexts of accommodation:

Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1971). Language in Social Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gumperz, J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP.

Heredia, Roberto R. (1997). Bilingual Memory and Hierarchical Models: A Case for
18
 Language Dominance. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10.

Hoffman, C. (1991). Introduction to Bilingualism. New York: Longman.

Jorgenson, J. N. (2003). Languaging among fifth graders: Code-switching in Conversation

501 of the Koge Project. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24 (1 & 2):
126-148.

Koike, D. (1987). Code switching in the bilingual Chicano narrative. Hispania, 70, 148-154.

Li Wei (1998). The ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions in the analysis of conversational code-
switching. In P. Auer (ed.). Code-switching in conversation: language, interaction and
identity. pp. 156-76. London: Routledge.

McClure, E. F. (1981). Formal and functional aspects of the code-switched discourse of

bilingual children. In R. P. Duran (Ed.), Latino Language and Communicative Behavior (pp.
69-94). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Milroy, L. & Muysken, P. (eds) (1995) One speaker, two languages. Cross disciplinary
perspectives on codeswitching. Cambridge: CUP.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1983). The negotiation of identities in conversation : A theory of

markedness and code choice. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 44: 115-
136.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1988). Self-enhancing codeswitching as interactional power. Language

and Communication, 8(3): 199 – 211.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1989). Code-switching with English: Types of switching, types o

communities. World Englishes, 8(1), 333-346.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993) Social motivations for code-switching, evidence from Africa.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.
19
Poplack, S. (1980) Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL:
towards a typology of code switching. Linguistics 18, 581-618.

Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Sridhar, K. K. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In S. L. McKay & N. H.

Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 47–70). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.

Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of ‘communication strategy’. In Færch, C. &
G. Kasper (eds) (1983). 61-74.

Wardaugh, R. (1998). An introduction to sociolingusitics. Massachusetts: Blackwell

Publishers Ltd. 3 rd Edition.

Witalisz, A. (2011). Linguistic Globalization as a Reflection of Cultural Changes. Annual

Conference of the Global Awareness Society International. May 2011. Pedagogical
University of Cracow, Poland.

20