User:Nou9721/sandbox

Code Switching in Languages

Code switching is considered a commonly new topic; however, it is wildly discussed in sociolinguistics. It became a frequent and interesting research topic studied from several perspectives. It is very common among bilinguals to use the process of using two or more linguistic varieties (dialect, language, or register) in the same interaction. For bilinguals, switching comes naturally, while at the same time it has functions that makes it more intriguing for linguists. There are several definitions for code switching. Medved (2002) considered it as a widespread phenomenon that is easy to notice but tough to explain. Consequently, different linguists employ different terminologies and give different definitions. While Nilep (2006) defines code switching to be a practice of groups in discourse to make signal changes in context via using alternate subsystems, grammatical systems, or codes. He also states that the mental representation of the codes cannot be observed in a direct way, so the analyst should observe the discourse itself. Code switching is one of the linguistic manifestations that occurs within language mixing and contact. It is variously contain borrowing on the syntactic and lexical levels, language transfer, interference, linguistic convergence, language death, language attrition, creolization, and pidginization among others, according to (Poplack, 2004).

Previous Studies
Despite the fact that code switching is a relatively young topic in sociolinguistics, several studies regarding its type, functions, form, and use have been examined over the years. Whereas discussing foundational studies of code switching, Nilep (2006) states that the first article, in the field of linguistics, to use the term code switching was for Hans Vogt’s ˮLanguage Contactsˮ (1954). Vogt recognizes code switching to be a common phenomenon and proposes that all languages- if not all language users- practice the language contact. Nilep (2006) also references John J. Gumperz, as the most influential sociocultural linguist in the field of studying code switching. He clarifies Gumperz’s studies that are conducted in northern India where he focused on Hindi and their dialects. Gumperz defined the Hindi three levels- village dialects, standard Hindi and regional dialects. In addition, he argued their different functions. Gumperz found out that, the relationship among speakers affects the choice of language variety and that different aspects of identity turn out to be salient in different speech situations. Other important research has been conducted by Valdés-Fallis (1978), who focused in her study on the speech of Mexican- American bilingual women. She concluded that these Mexican- American women lean towards using more sequential switches when talking to males than when talking to females. Moreover, they tend to associate more markedly to the style of code switching of male interlocutors than they do to that of female interlocutors. Furthermore, Myers (1983) presents a set of maxims that are governing the negotiation of identities in chat. She claims that applicants in conversation read all code choices in regards of a natural theory of markedness. While speakers identify choices as either marked or unmarked in reference to their speech community norms.

Functions of code switching
The Functions are usually anticipated to be a sign of language knowledge inefficiency among bilingual speakers. On the other hand, many researchers have discussed that code switching is typically developed by bilingual speakers to achieve specific communicative intentions in their dialogues with others (Shin, 2010). Functions of code switching can be assumed within the three major functions’ framework. These functions turn around the linguistic, social, and psychological motivations. Hawazen (2012) and Auer (2013) and clarify that the social motivations are the central cause for code switching. Speakers use it because they transfer a change in social distance between other participants and themselves in a conversation. According to Hoffman (1991), there are ten functions of code switching which are showing below:
 * 1) 1-	To talk about a specific topic.
 * 2) 2-	To quote someone else.
 * 3) 3-	To give emphasis about something.
 * 4) 4-	To do an interjection.
 * 5) 5-	To repeat in order to explain.
 * 6) 6-	To express group identity.
 * 7) 7-	To show intention of illuminating speech content for interlocutor.
 * 8) 8-	To strengthen or soften a command or request.
 * 9) 9-	To obtain a real lexical need or to compensate for lack of an equivalent translation.
 * 10) 10-	To dismiss others when a comment is proposed for an exclusive audience.

Types of Code Switching
According to Poplack (1980), here are the formal categorization of the three types of code switching: For tag switching, it refers to insertion of tags, for example; I mean and you know in sentences that are totally in the other language. Tags have some restrictions as “subject to minimal syntactic restrictions”; as a result, the insertion into a monolingual utterance respects the syntactic rules. This suggests that intrasentential and inter-sentential switching reveals higher language proficiency, contrasting in the case of tag switching. For example, foreigners use the phrase “you know” while speaking language other than English. Inter-sentential switching “involves switches form one language to other between sentences: a complete sentence (or more than one sentence) is produced entirely in one language before there is a switch to the other languages” (Myers, 1993:3). In contrast, Intra-sentential switching happens “within the same sentence or sentence fragment” (Myers, 1993:4). This type of switching is considered frequently for the analysis of the language behavior in the study because of the consideration of the patterns of morpho-syntactic. ==
 * 1) •	Tag-switching
 * 2) •	Inter-sentential switching
 * 3) •	Intra-sentential switching