Code-switching
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Code-switching | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Peter Auer (University of Freiburg, Germany) & Elwys De Stefani (University of Heidelberg, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-8383) |
| To cite: | Auer, Peter, & De Stefani, Elwys. (2023). Code-switching. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/B5K8E |
The term code-switching lacks a clear definition. It is used for all kinds of co-occurrences of different languages or varieties in a sentence and/or in conversation. A conversation-analytic (‘emic’) approach grounded in members’ methods needs to make sure which ‘codes’ are involved. These must not be equated with traditional languages. Rather, from a members’ perspective, codes can be languages or dialects, but also more or less habitualized styles of speaking, which may be multilingual in themselves (Gafaranga 2001) and contrast with monolingual styles (see Auer’s 1999 distinction between code-switching and language mixing). While classical studies on code-switching mostly focus on multilingual groups of people who speak codes that ‘belong’ to them, interactants can also switch into a stylized or even mock variety that does not ‘belong’ to them, a phenomenon known as ‘crossing’ (Rampton 1995).
In code-switching, the juxtaposition of the ‘codes’ is exploited by conversationalists as a verbal practice for interactional sense-making (in Gumperz’ terms, as a ‘contextualization cue’, 1982). The practice is always based on the contrast between code A and code B actions (or parts of them). In addition, using code A instead of B may bring into the conversation additional social meanings associated with that code in the social group. Outside conversation analysis, code-switching has also been analyzed as a display of membership (Gumperz 1982) or identity, or as a strategic language choice (Myers-Scotton 1993a). The syntactic organization of code-switching (Myers-Scotton 1993b) and the grammar of lexical borrowing (Poplack 2018) have also received a considerable amount of attention. In applied linguistics, and particularly in the analysis of L2 classroom interaction, the term trans- or polylanguaging has become popular in the last two decades (García & Wei 2014). It fails, however, to capture the members’ perspective essential to a conversation-analytic approach (Auer 2022).
Auer’s approach (1984, 1995, for a short summary, see Auer 2009) promoted a sequential analysis of code-switching, which has been embraced by conversation analysts and interactional linguists (e.g., Cromdal 2004; Gafaranga 2007; Li Wei & Milroy 1985). These studies examine code-switching as a practice that enables interactants to accomplish socially relevant actions. They have shown that code-switching is a highly indexical practice. Its efficacy for interactants can only be understood by analyzing the sequential position in which the phenomenon occurs.
A basic distinction can be drawn between code negotiation sequences—in which participants may diverge in their linguistic choice until a common code is found—and code-switching from one established code-of-interaction to the another one, as accomplished by one speaker who thereby to changes the frame of the interaction. This can be done in many ways, and the ‘meaning’ of the switching cannot be identified without a sequential analysis. Simple examples for such re-framings are shifts of participant constellation (a speaker selects different addressees by different codes), shifts of topic/sequence or shifts of interactional mode (from ‘serious’ to ‘ironic’, from ‘intimate’ to ‘formal’, etc.). Discourse-related code-switching of this type invites the co-participants to acknowledge the new frame, which is typically done by aligning with the new code choice (‘preference for same language talk’). Another type of code-switching is participant-related code-switching, by which interactants orient to personal language preferences and expertise (of both speaker and recipient). Both discourse- and participant-related switching are alternational, i.e., they affect the current code-of-interaction. Less frequently, insertional code-switching may occur, taking place within an activity without questioning the code-of-interaction, for instance in order to create coherence across turns.
The following instance of code-switching exemplifies some of the types of code-switching mentioned above: Clemente and Alfredo, two adolescents with a southern Italian family background living in Germany, have been complaining about an elderly couple living in the same house with whom they are in conflict. Marco, an adult friend, asks for clarification.
[Auer 1984: 25; retranscribed to GAT]
(Italian/Italian dialect in regular font, German in boldface. <ë> = schwa)
01 M: perché non laVOrano però eh stanno tutto [il giorno a CAsa;
because they don’t work eh, they stay [at home all day;
02 Al: [che è vecchië e già
penzioNANN; nun HANnë figlië;=
because he’s old and already retired; they don’t have children;
03 M: =e[::;
04 Cl: [ <<f> na aber NICHT der MANN; (-)
well but not the husband; (-)
05 [der MANN SCHAFFT no;
the husband still goes to work;
06 Al: [u MO u MO
the hus the hus
07 u MANN è:: chist è: chiù (-) chiù schlimm anGOra;
the husband is this (one) is even more (-) more horrible;
The languages in play are Italian/Calabrian dialect on the one hand (which participants treat as one code) and (slightly dialectal) German on the other. The alternational and discourse-related switch by Clemente into German in line 04 diverges from the established code between Marco and Alfredo and changes, among other things, the participant constellation (from Alfredo addressing Marco to Clemente addressing Alfredo). Alfredo’s reply in 06 returns to the first frame (addressing once more Marco) but via insertional mixing (cf. the co-referential word "Mann"/‘man’ in 04 as well as in 07) establishes coherence with Clemente’s preceding turn.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual Conversation. John Benjamins.
Auer, P. (1995) The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One Speaker, Two Languages (pp. 115-135). Cambridge University Press.
Auer, P. (1999). From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3(4), 309–332.
Auer, P. (2009). Bilingual conversation. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The New Sociolinguistics Reader (pp. 490-511). Palgrave.
Auer, P. (2022). ‘Translanguaging’ or ‘doing languages’? Multilingual practices and the notion of ‘codes‘. In J. MacSwann (Ed.), Multilingual Perspectives on Translanguaging (pp. 126-153). Multilingual Matters.
Cromdal, J. (2004). Building bilingual oppositions: Code-switching in children’s disputes. Language in Society, 33(1), 33–58.
Gafaranga, J. (2001). Linguistic identities in talk-in-interaction: Order in bilingual conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1901–1925.
Gafaranga, J. (2007). Talk in Two Languages. Springer.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Li Wei & Milroy, L. (1995) Conversational code-switching in a Chinese community in Britain: a sequential analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 281–299.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993a). Social Motivations for Codeswitching. Clarendon Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993b). Duelling Languages. Grammatical Structure in Code-Switching. Clarendon Press.
Poplack, S. (2018). Borrowing: Loanwords in the Speech Community and in the Grammar. Oxford University Press.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. Longman.
Additional References:
Auer, P. (2010). Code-switching/mixing. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, & P. Kerswill (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 460–478). Sage.
