An Overview Of Theories And Approaches To Code-Switching

International Research Journal of Arts and Humanities (IRJAH) Vol.48, No. 48, 2020 ISSN: 1016-9342
An Overview of Theories and Approaches to Code-Switching
Farida Panhwar, Ghulam Ali Buriro
Abstract
The study of code-switching refers to the shift in a spoken language both across as well
as within sentence boundaries. There are numerous linguistic, sociolinguistic and
psycholinguistic theories and approaches to elucidate the socio-cultural, cognitive and
structural aspects to understanding the code-switching phenomenon. However, these
theories and approaches are overlapping and create perplexity for researchers to
distinguish them independently. The contribution of this paper is to explain and analyze
various theories as well as re-locate them into the various schools of thought and put
them under their respective umbrellas according to their approaches.
Keywords: code-switching, conversational analysis, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic,
structural
Introduction
The term code switching (CS) was initially used by sociolinguists like Gumperz in the
1960‟s (Albarrilo, 2018). Code-switching is one of the important fields in
multilingualism. The term code refers to „languages, dialects, styles of speech‟; while
switch denotes to an alternation or change between varieties of languages, dialects or
styles (Gardener-Chloros, 2009, p. 11). Generally, the term code-switching defines the
shifts in spoken language both across as well as within sentence boundaries (Blom and
Gumperz, 1972). Code-switching usually occurs in bilingual settings where speakers
alternate between two languages on a sentence or phrase level (Mabule, 2015). It is also
defined as selection or alteration of language elements to match the context of the
interaction; this practice may include linguistic and extra-linguistic elements like identity,
norms, culture, etc. in its fold (Nilep, 2006). Code-switching is investigated via three
different perspectives: sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and structural. This need for
involving other fields of knowledge in linguistic inquiry was first raised by Sapir (1929).
Sociolinguistic theories investigate the social motivations that drive the speakers to
switch the code from one to other while psycholinguistics theories investigate the
cognitive process where two or more languages are working simultaneously; and
structural approach focuses on the grammatical rules that interfere or permit the
combination of different languages during switching process.
265

1 The sociolinguistic approach
Sociolinguistic theories of code-switching explore code-switching as a social language
behaviour that reflects the linguistic, social and cultural norms of a speech community.
Sociolinguistics is an extensive theory that functions at macro and micro level (Shah,
Furqan & Zaman, 2019). The micro approach focuses on the interpersonal relationships
between speaker and interlocutor; contrarily, macro approach analyses the functions of
code-switching in a social context within a speech community. Keeping in view the broad
dimension of sociolinguistic approach, the investigation of code-switching has been
divided into three schools of thought:
(i) Code-switching as a social practice of communication to perform certain
socio-cultural functions.
(ii) Code-switching in terms of conversation analysis.
(iii) Code-switching as a social process for creating or levelling social boundaries.
Each school of thought is described in detail in the following sections.
(i) Code-switching as a Social Practice
First school of thought is represented by Gumperz, (1956; 1982), Blom and
Gumperz, (1972), Myers-Scotton (1993a) and others have referred to code-
switching as a social dynamic in a bilingual or multilingual discourse. They focus
on speaker; interlocutor; physical setting; conversational style (i.e. formal or
informal) and the topics of discussion as the instigating tools to switch the code
for achievement of particular social functions or to achieve sociolinguistic goals
(Bhatt & Bolonyai, 2008; Chakrani, 2016; Clyne, 2003). Gumperz (1958)
concluded that male Indian population uses local dialect at home or in informal
settings while standard dialect is reserved for formal interactions, like workplace,
official gathering or meeting. Blom and Gumperz (1972) explored the code-
switching of standard dialect Bokmål and local dialect Ranamål in context of
Norway. Findings suggest that although both dialects have great similarities but
they are used in different contexts depending on the functions of interaction.
Blom and Gumperz (1972) have divided these functions into two broad
categories: situational code-switching and metaphorical code-switching.
Situational code-switching is a linear relationship between use of language
and social milieu; and the speaker determines the situation, the interlocutor and
the topic, and uses the most appropriate code to gain the maximum interactional
functions (Gumperz, 1982, p. 61). Blom and Gumperz (1972) illustrated an
interaction between a clerk and a resident at a community office in Norway. Both
speakers used standard Bokmål when discussing official affairs but switched to
local Ranamål when they talked informally on family issues. In this situation, the
change in code choices from formal to informal or vice versa is signalling a shift
in their roles from employees to friends (Blom and Gumperz, 1972). This change
in code is a predictable feature that specifies the social relationships of the
266

participants and their expectations, or „Rights and Obligations‟ (RO). RO are the
elements of a language that are safeguarded from speaker A for speaker B and
vice versa in terms of language use, clues, postures, a reluctance or desire to
oscillate between two grammars (Blom and Gumperz, 2000). In other words, RO
indicates the relationship between language choice and social situation which is
either expected (unmarked) or unexpected (marked) and a violation of the RO
may lead to the conversation being terminated (Blom and Gumperz, 2000, p.
126). Hence, code-switching is a linguistic property of bi/multilingual and a rule-
governed process that is dependent on situation and interlocutor to achieve
particular social functions. The second type of code-switching is Metaphorical
code-switching that occurs when change does not occur in the situation rather the
change in the language is intentional and it has an oblique or symbolical message
or symbolic connotation depending on the speakers‟ decision to use a different
code where normally another language is operated (Gumperz, 1982). Thus,
metaphorical code-switching conveys a privacy and secrecy of a conversation
(Blom and Gumperz, 2000). This switching bounds the interlocutor to interpret
and unfold the metaphor in order to infer it and get implicit meaning (Panhwar,
2018). Metaphorical code-switching investigates the extra-linguistic factors and
linguistic behavior of bilinguals that how the later betters a linguistic situation by
channelizing allusion to serve multiple relationships within the same situation
(Blom and Gumperz, 1972).
Blom and Gumperz‟s (1972) theory was criticized on the grounds that
both situational and metaphorical code-switching lack the clarity as both focus on
the choice of code and functions (Panhwar, 2018). Gumperz (1982) redefined his
concept asserting that external factors of situational code-switching such as
setting, topic and changes in the linguistic situation are the main motivational
factors; while in metaphorical code-switching the speaker is comparatively more
focused (Gumperz, 1982, p. 61). In metaphorical code-switching the code-
switcher is considered as the „prime cause‟ of code-switching depending on the
individual‟s perception (Panhwar, 2018, p. 211).
Myers-Scotton (1993a) criticised the notions of situational and
metaphorical code-switching on taxonomic grounds and to avoid the blurriness
introduced marked (unexpected) and unmarked (expected) code-switching in
Markedness Model (MM) of code-switching. The MM model explains the
prevailing social norms in a social interaction is an „innate human language
faculty‟ and multi linguals are aware of the socio-linguistic norms in terms of the
choice of code/s in their speech community “what the community predict[s] is
unmarked, what is not predicted is marked” (Myers-Scotton 1993a, p. 5).
Elaborating it further Myers-Scotton states that generally a multilingual speaker
responding to a change of situation uses expected or unmarked code; however, in
certain situation the speakers have a choice to formulate desirable rights and
obligations as contribution to a conversation (1993a). The mutual agreement and
An Overview of Theories and Approaches to Code-Switching 267

awareness of linguistic conventions allow speakers to distinguish between
expected or unexpected code.
The MM model was criticized by Auer (1998) on the ground that it fails to
consider the speaker‟s perspective as the motivational force behind their use of
code-switching. Myers-Scotton (2002) addressed this criticism and has re-defined
the MM model in the Rational Choice Model focusing on the speakers‟
“subjective motivations and their objective opportunities in their language
choice” (p. 5). She states that the code-switcher is conscious linguistic behaviour
and code-switcher is a rational agent who calculates the apt choices of code for
best communicative reward (Myers-Scotton, 2002). Consequently, code-switcher
is a „goal-directed ad creative‟ who by using his/her cognitive abilities assess the
costs and rewards and switches to mark or unmark code (Myers-Scotton, 2002).
In the recent developments in study of code-switching as social practices
the linguistic approaches are more empirical-based. The research of Schmidt
(2014) and Panhwar (2018) suggests that language preference, social identity,
participants‟ gender and age can also be influential factors in a code-switching.
Recent study of Panhwar (2018) provides the in-depth view of the language
selection strategies by trilingual speakers depending on the situation, topic and
interlocutors.
The research by Song (2019) contributed to another aspect of
sociolinguistic approach to code-mixing: role of code-mixing in language
socialization. The findings of the study show that language socialization of
children through code-mixing practices provides them a broader spectrum of
creative linguistic use, and also a richer pragmatic information which helps them
interpret complex social meanings more easily.
Wood (2019) has introduced even a new dimension in the sociolinguistic
perspective of code-mixing: using code-mixing as a tool by doctors to build
rapport and persuade a patient to stick to their treatment plan. This is the first
study of its kind which opens gates to new range of research ideas in medical field
through code-mixing: tone as an affective factor in code-switching, code-
switching to a vocabulary that patients understand, code-switching to a
vocabulary that patients find befitting to their educational and professional status,
increasing the patient adherence, and so on.
(ii) Conversational Analysis
Code-switching at micro level is analyzed through conversation analysis (CA),
also known as conversational code-switching (Gumperz, 1982). When Blom and
Gumperz‟s (1972) notions of situational and metaphorical code-switching were
criticized, Gumperz (1982) revisited and modified these notions of code-
switching by avoiding the situational and metaphorical code-switching taxonomy
by using the general term conversational code-switching that focuses on particular
language choices in a specific setting, topic, and speaker‟ language strategies.
268 An Overview of Theories and Approaches to Code-Switching

Gumperz (1982) introduced the notion of contextualization cues which focuses on
the brief, spoken interaction as a way of identifying the functions of code-
switching. Defining the contextualization cues, Gumperz (1982) states that a
feature of language that signals at a presupposition which may carry meanings
and information for a conversational situation is called a contextualization cue.
The contextualization cues may be prosodic, extra-linguistic, syntactic,
lexical or stylistic to convey the social signals about the attitude and mood of the
speaker such as anger, warning, attracting attention, and establishing identity.
Speakers encode and listeners decode the information and make meaning and they
also link utterances before and after the spoken sentence with it (Gumperz, 1982).
The cues are social, metaphorical global and local discourse devices in which the
speaker employs distinct language varieties in the specific settings [informal and
informal] and ideally, addressee actively infers these cues to know the meaning of
speaker‟s switching and responds to it appropriately (Gumperz, 1982, p. 131).
Thus, contextualization cues are the clusters of signs used in a speech act that
collectively indexes a frame of interpretation of an utterance (Gumperz, 1982).
The contextualization cues have also come under fire by Myers-Scotton (1993a)
who states that language is a dynamic tool but Gumperz had confined the
functions of code-switching to the linguistic competence of bilinguals.
However, Auer (1984-1998) and Wei (2002; 2005), using the term
conversation analysis (CA), broaden this concept. They believe that structural and
sociolinguistic approaches leave a gap in the understanding of code-switching
because a structuralist focuses on language-internal factors while the sociolinguist
analyses language-external factors. In this situation, CA can be the best option to
bridge the gap by focusing on why code-switching occurs and how it occurs
(Auer, 1995). Using the term code alternation, Auer (ibid) expanded the socio-
pragmatic functions of code-switching by elaborating contextualization cues as a
sequential way of language choice. (1995, p. 116). Auer argues that no utterance
can be interpreted in a void, but must be taken as an “utterance in a particular
locus of occurrence” paying a special focus on the speakers as social actors.
Related to this, Auer introduced the notion of sequentiality which states that the
emergence of functionality of code-mixing occurs as a sequential development
and that coder-mixing alterations depends on sequential environment for their
meaning (1995). However, Auer‟s notion of CA is at micro level that pays
attention to the speakers‟ intentions but it does not address the social aspects of
code-switching. On this ground, Myers-Scotton and Bolonyai (2001) censure CA
for its overwhelming emphasis on sequencing, ignoring the social motivations and
identities of the participants. Wei (2005) defends the micro level position of CA,
and states that it is the appropriate approach to know how the conversations are
exhibited, contemplated, endorsed, negated, or altered during conversation.
Adapting the brought along and brought about concept from Auer (1995), Wei
(2002) simplified that all social theories analyse languages involved in code-
269

switching as social-symbolic, hence they are brought along to the interpretation of
the codes that pre-exist social association (p. 167). While the CA approach
emphasized the recurring characteristic of meaning, the semantic component of an
interaction is a result of a bilingual speaker‟s contextualization through code-
mixing (Wei, 2002). Thus, the brought along notion indicates the code that
indexes speaker‟s identity and the brought about indicates speaker‟s language
choices for code-switching (Auer, 1995 and Wei 2002). CA is an effective
method for examining the techniques in bilinguals use in speech in order to
understand its organisation and interpretation.
(iii) Code-switching as a social process
This sociolinguistic school of thought analyses code-switching from the
perspectives of politics of language, negotiation, power, authority, resistance,
anger, hegemony etc. (Heller, 1988). Code-switching is seen as a strategy to
define leveling and maintaining boundaries in multilingual societies (Bourdieu,
1977, 1991; Gal, 1979; Gumperz, 1982; Heller, 1988; Woolard, 1988). Bourdieu
(1977, 1991) considers language choice as a strategic tool to exert power through
concepts of linguistic resource (language availability), symbolic marketing (status
of a language in the society) and capital language (dominated language). The
ruling minority chooses one variety of a language to be legitimate which gains a
natural legitimacy in the various spheres of life and is further imposed by the
dominant group as the standard variety or standard dialect, hence it becomes an
official linguistic resource as a symbol of capital (Bourdieu, 1991). To understand
the functions of code-switching in a society, it is important to know the past and
present status of its various speech communities, this opens gates to
understanding the linguistic atrocities that were committed in past, if any; this was
proven by an ethnographic study carried out in Austria where language choice
correlated to social status, ethnic or group solidarity (Gal, 1979). The notions of
we and they are used as code indexes of in-group and out-group identity and are
used as the tools for ethnic, cultural and social bifurcation to create or level the
social boundaries; however, these codes are used to show ethnic identity
predominantly e.g. in some countries members of minority group switch to
majority code to gain easy access to power (Gumperz, 1982). For example, in
Pakistan, especially in urban areas, native bilinguals make up 92% of the
population. Due to hegemony of Urdu, which is the language of only 8% Indian-
Muslim refugees are settled in Pakistan, they speak Urdu instead of their native
languages (Panhwar, et al., 2018). This is similar to the situation in India where
Hindi, the language of the minority, dominates languages such as Tamil, Telugu
and Malayalam etc.
The social practice involves various social functions aimed at achieving a
variety of goals. When a speaker switches from one language to another, most of
the times there are conscious, clear-cut goals at play. These goals could be a

professional gain, inclusiveness in a group, showing solidarity to a group, or
representing one‟s self in a bilingual situation (Albirini, 2011, 2014a, 2014b;
Davies & Bentahila, 2006).
The presence or absence of a „capital code‟ is related to the unnatural
distribution of linguistic resources. Those who have more access to highly valued
languages are able to control and exploit this valuable linguistic resource to gain
socioeconomic status while others remain deprived (Heller, 1988, p. 1). One must
consider the access of common people to that capital code and socioeconomic
differences while studying code-switching in a community (McClure & McClure,
1988). Colonial policies, for example, used language as a tool to demarcate the
natives from the white community, and rulers from the ruled (Zentella, 1997). The
separation of ruling from the ruled and hence production and reproduction of
dominance of the former over the later can be helped significantly by code-
switching and other particularized elite language patterns; the educated elite form
a prestigious code with maximum code-switching patterns which is then limited
to elite circles hence making it nearly impossible for the common people to access
it (Myers-Scotton, 1993a, 2004). Sometimes such elite codes face a backlash or
resistance from the masses (Woolard, 1998). Code-switching has also been seen
as socially stigmatized behavior (Mahootian, 1993) but that does not seem to be
case looking at the language norms in countries like Pakistan where such norms
are generally considered a normal language behavior (Panhwar, 2018).
The socio-political and ethnic-cognitive factors are predominant elements
of language crossing (also known as code-crossing). The code is altered and
crossed by people who are not considered the owners of the other language, so
they consciously or sub-consciously switch from their native language to other
language to view the identity and ethnicity of the other group and reshape his/her
identity based on those observations (Rampton, 1995, p. 300).
Code-switching to prestigious languages may be used as a tool of
language shift. Educated and elite Sindhi-speaking Pakistanis frequently switch to
English and Urdu, the official languages and prestigious codes of the country that
symbolize power and social status, to exercise and maintain power; it is also an
unsociable process of language shift. This situation may cause a significant
alteration to language in Pakistan by establishing loan words as the permanent
lexicons (Panhwar, 2018).
One of the least research approaches to code-switching includes bi-
dialectical code-switching. Often, there are two varieties within a language:
colloquial and standard. Speakers switch from one variety to another in order to
achieve various social functions. This particular approach is necessary to
understand the phenomenon of Heritage language acquisition (Albirini, 2011,
2014a, 2014b; Albirini & Chakrani, 2016). In the same direction, Gardner-
Chloros (2017) has identified another issue of significance: there has been a great
gulf between the research of historical sociolinguistics and mainstream
271

sociolinguistics, in the perspective of code-switching, despite the fact that the
interests of both overlap each other. By mainstream sociolinguistics, it is implied
that despite taking the cover of historical sociolinguistics the contemporary
mainstream research in this area covers only contemporary multilingual events.
2. Psycholinguistic approach
The second approach of investigating the phenomenon of code-switching is from
psychological, neurological, structural and socio-cultural perspectives that explains the
mechanism of cognition and knowledge basis of language creation, meaning-making, and
adoption (Kootstra, 2015). Grosjean (2000) states that code-switching is a multifaceted
system that clarifies the potential of a bilingual speaker to discriminate the two codes.
Early interactions between code-switching and psychology were analyzed by Weinreich
(1953) who attributed the bilingual potential to switch codes with early childhood and
bilingual parenting. Endorsing his ideas, Vogt (1954) termed code-switching as a
psychological phenomenon rather than a linguistic one.
During the code-switching process the cognitive mechanism establishes the
balance by neutralizing network, however, no language is completely „turned off‟ but all
languages „co-exist‟ while one is highly active than others; or the languages cross and re-
cross each other (Grosjean, 1982, p. 260). Grosjean (2000) considers the interlocutors,
location, and functionality of interaction as the essential components for activation of the
bilingual‟s „language mode‟ that makes code-switching possible. No doubt, it is a
complex decision-making process compared to monolingual because the mind of a
bilingual speaker first “decides which base language to use, and in the second stage
engages in code-switching” as illustrated in the following figure:
Language choices and code-switching
(Grosjean, 1982, p. 145)
272
Bilingual Speaking to
Monolingual Bilingual
will use will use
L 1 L 2 L 1 L 2
Language
Choice
With
Code-
Switching
Without
Code-
Switching
With
Code-
Switching
Without
Code-
Switching
Code-
Switching

Unfolding the cognitive process Clyne (1991) uses the „triggering hypothesis‟
which explicates that code switching is promoted by words that trigger an intersection of
two codes which may affect a speaker to drop his/her L1 repertoire and take aid from L2
for continuation of conversation. Poplack (1980) states that code-switching mechanism is
either „smooth or flagged‟, depending on the linguistic competence of code-switcher. The
smooth code-switching is fluent and effortless while in flagged code-switching contains
hesitation or repetition during the production of language. De Bot (1992) states that there
are two kinds of code-switching: performance switching; which is un-intention switching
of a bilingual; and second is motivated switching which is intentionally use of code-
switching. Both depend on an individual‟s linguistic competence that is solely
responsible to increase or decrease the level of activation of languages. Code-switching
can also determine psychological dimensions of personality, hence code-switching is not
merely a linguistic matter but it goes beyond that: it can exhibit a person‟s self-definition,
self-perception, self-image, and the affective factors of personality (Bilgin, 2016).
Code-switching can be explored at the lexical and syntactic levels. In lexical code
-switching, two subsystems of languages are operated as single system within a single
framework (Clyne, 1991; De Bot, 1992). The lexical switching is “often when the
stimulus contained a cognate, but only when the confederate had just code-switched in
the preceding turn” (Kootstra, 2015, p. 10). This means that the triggering of code-
switching is associated with speaker and interlocutor, if one of them restraints from code-
switching the speaker‟s willingness to switch code is significantly low (ibid). A recent
study has proven a novel fact that integrated code-switching can generate conflict
resolution during a confronting situation. It implies that there is interdependence between
cross-linguistic conflict and adjusting behavior when code-switching is utilized; overall
findings of the study allow an insight into how language processing desires of bilinguals
regulate moment-by-moment cognitive control performance (Adler, Valdes Kroff, &
Novick, 2020).
While a bilingual‟s internal or cognitive mechanism makes code-switching
possible, there are external factors that influence the degree of activation for code-
switching. Accommodation theory of code-switching explains the social as well as
cognitive reasons for code-switching in inter-group interactions. It conceptualises code-
switching as a partial accommodation to minimise social differences. Moreover, language
is a social practice and a channel to connect people with their community, locality and
times they live in, in order to accommodate and adjust themselves according to context
and people (Giles, at el, 1991). Speakers consider social approval of their interlocutors to
switch or modify their speech according to the code and style of the later. This is also
done by speakers to adapt or mimic the interlocutors to accommodate and adjust (Giles,
at el, 1991). On the contrary, in certain situations, when speakers do not follow their
interlocutors‟ code then they diverge themselves from their interlocutors (Giles et al.,
1991). Thus, accommodation theory is the social approval or disapproval of a linguistic
behavior.
273

3. The Structural approach to Code-switching
The structural approach measures the degree to which an L2 is integrated into an L1 or
vice versa. It also explains syntactic and morphological constraints which restrict this
integration. This approach determines intra-linguistic code-switching as internalized
grammatical systems or subsystems of bilingualism; and semantic and syntactical ties
which bind two languages in a single speech act (Poplack, 1980, 2000). Grammatically
constrained theory explains that shifting of languages at intra-sentential level is possible
at certain morpho-syntactic boundaries only (Weinreich, 1953, 1968). This theory was
further unfolded by Poplack (1980-2000),Di Sciullo, et al (1986), Myers-Scotton (1993-
2000), Mahootian (1993), MacSwan‟s (1999)etc. According to structuralists, code-
switching is the “juxtaposition of sentences or sentence‟s fragments, each of which are
internally consistent with the morphological and syntactic (and optionally, phonological)
rules of its lexifier language” (Poplack and Meechan, 1995, p. 200). The rules of lexifier
refer to the borrow-ability of vocabulary (or lexicon) from one language to another as per
the rules of the imported language.
Theory of Equivalence Constraint focuses on two specific constraints:
equivalence and Morpheme. Code-switching occurs when there is agreement of the three
grammatical constraints of the languages involved: first, code-switching occurs at
syntactical positions where there rules of L1 and L2 are not violated; two, there is more
switching on sentence level than lexical level; and three, free morphemes are a big
constraint in the way of code-switching. Free morphemes predict that code-switching is
not possible between bound morphemes and a lexical form until such a lexical form is
phonologically integrated into the bound morpheme (Sankoff and Poplack, 1981).
Closed-Class Constraint and Open-Class Constraint Theory of code switching
states that a code switching is impermissible between a closed-class items (determiners,
preposition, auxiliary verb, etc.) and an open class items (Noun, adjective, adverb etc.)
(Joshi, 1985, p.10). Code-switching is possible when a control structure allows a shift
from a matrix code to an embedded code but not vice versa (MacSwan, 2000). However,
this theory was negated by code-switching between Italian and French (Di Sciullo, 1986)
and, Persian and English (Santorini & Mahootian, 1995) where code-switching was
possible between closed-class items. The theory was also criticized for ill-presenting the
code-switching instances (MacSwan, 2000). Bokamba (1989, p. 21) suggested that
ungrammaticalities in code-switching are not violations of the morpho-syntactic rules
governing it, but should be considered as violations of the syntactic constraints of the
language involved in the code-switching. Panhwar (2018) explains that switching is not
possible when the word-orders of two languages vary from each other. For example,
Sindhi-English code-switching is not predictable at auxiliary verb level because the basic
word order of Sindhi is SOV while English is SVO.
To encounter the equivalent constrain approach, MacSwan (1999, 2000)
suggested Minimalist Approach which is based on Chomsky‟s (1982) Theory of
Universal Grammar i.e., human brain has innate tendency to acquire some grammar rules.
There are three stages of code-switching: „Pick, Merge and Move‟. The bilinguals, using

their linguistic competence, choose a component and expose them to numeration, then
they assemble a subset of lexicons to establish a derivation (MacSwan, 2000). Then, this
language item merges together and the sentential objects created by the operation mix
and move by other operation to go on and make a new sentence (ibid). Hence, the
minimal approach explains code switching process in terms principles and requirements
of Universal Grammar to formulate the use of grammar to form code-switching as a
mixing of two lexicons (ibid, p. 71).
Matrix Language Frame (MLF) elucidates “how language is accessed and
retrieved before it takes the final form” (Myers-Scotton 1993b, p. 45). This model
unfolds the structural patterns and systematic grammatical relationships of the languages
involved in code-switching. When a bilingual speaker combines different languages
within a syntactic unit (e.g. a sentence or a clause) the dominant language is known as the
„matrix language‟ (ML) while inserted language items are derived from the „embedded
language‟ (EL) (ibid). The nucleus of MLF model is that “code-switching takes place
within a frame set by matrix language” by providing functional morphemes while the EL
has a lesser role since it provides content morphemes (ibid, p. 75). Furthermore, the MLF
model is based on two principles to determine the ML:
(i) The Morpheme Order Principle: in Matrix Language + Embedded Language
constituents consisting of singly occurring Embedded Language lexemes and any
Number of Matrix Language morphemes, surface morpheme order (reflecting
surface Syntactic relations) will be that of the Matrix Language (ibid, p. 75).
(ii) The System Morpheme Principle: in Matrix Language + Embedded Language
constituents all system Morphemes which have grammatical relations external to
their head constituent (i.e. which participate in the sentence‟s thematic role grid)
will come from the Matrix language. Thus in the SMP principle, the ML provides
system morphemes which are functional elements (such as determiners,
conjunctions, quantifiers, and modals) (Myers-Scotton, 1997, p.83).
The third situation that is called classic code-switching in which “abstract
grammatical structure within a clause comes from only one of the participating
languages” (Myers-Scotton, 2006, p. 241). Within a corpus, the ML may vary from
clause to clause, although this is unusual. Thus in classic code-switching speaker is “able
to produce well-formed utterance in both participating verities” but only one variety
provides the morpho-syntactic frame and acts as matrix language (ibid).
However, there is skepticism regarding considering language as a binary
conditional set of ML and EL (Auer & Muhamedova, 2005; Panhwar, 2018) The
morpheme order and the occurrence of islands may obscure the identification of matrix
languages (Panhwar, 2018). MML model also ill formed some examples that are not
supported by grammatical theory (MacSwan, 2000).
Furthermore, Poplack (1980), focusing on the linguistic competence of code-
switcher and the degree of integration of languages involved in code-switching, explains
275

three kinds of code-switching: intra-sentential, inter-sentential and tag-sentential, as
indicated in the following figure:
The type and degree of code-switching (Adapted from Poplack, 1980, p. 615)
Inter-sentential switching Tag-switching Intrasentential switching
Inter-sentential code-switching occurs at clause or sentence boundaries in which
one clause is in one language and the other clause in another, representing an “integrated
knowledge of the rules of both languages, including their similarities and
differences” (Sankoff and Poplack, 1981, p. 5). However, both languages retain their
grammatical independence. This occurs in the speech of fluent bi/multilingual speakers
who maintain the grammar rules of the languages as Romaine illustrates in the following
example in which the speaker uses first a clause in English (in bold) and switches to
Punjabi code (in italics) in next clause (1989, p. 113):
I am guilty in that sense keziyadawasi English boldefer ode
naleda hwndeketwhadijerizeban e na?
(I am guilty in that sense that I speak more English otherwise it
happens that it is not your own language).
This intra-sentential code-switching is common and has been called the symbolic
element of language processing of bilinguals (Van Hell, et al. 2018), it occurs at the
word, phrase and clause levels or within the sentential level and may include the “mixing
within word boundaries” (Romaine, 1989, p. 113).. However, in intra-sentential
switching, both languages integrate certain grammatical properties of the other language.
Poplack (2000) considers it a more complex process because the speaker controls two
linguistic systems simultaneously in a sentence production and the violation of grammar
rules may result in ungrammatical constructions. In the following examples, the speaker
has switched languages within a verb and noun phrase respectively:
1. Wsi mixkarderehne
(We are mix [mixing] (Romaine, 1989, p. 113):
2. Moonmovie tickets wart, ahin.
(I have purchased movie tickets.) (Panhwar, 2018, p. 194)
Poplack (1980) states that speaker‟s with advanced linguistic competence mostly
rely on intrasentential and intersentential switching. However, Silva-Corvalán and

Treffers-Daller (2009) and Panhwar (2018) disagree and state that linguistic competence
cannot work unless a speech community accepts such switching as standard practice.
The third type is tag or emblematic code-switching which generally integrates
exclamatory or interjections (Poplack, 1980). This is a simple type of code-switching
with a minimal risk of grammatical violation because interjections or exclamatory words
do not form a complete embedded phrase as indicated in the following example where
English tag code-switching is used in the Sindhi utterance
Actually, muhinjo mutlab ihio na ho.
(Actually, I don’t mean that) (Panhwar, 2018, p. 194)
Gumperz (1982) treats tag switching as sentence fillers while Milroy and
Muysken (1995, p. 8) views them as an extra-sentence or emblematic sentence whichare
comprised of one or two words, contain an expressive meaning, and act as connectives
and fillers. Callahan (2004) views tag code-switching as a discourse marker which acts as
the contextual coordinates of talk in a conversation.
A couple of the recent approaches to understand intra-sentential code-mixing are
electrophysiological and experimental-behavioral approaches, the former deals with the
comprehension of code-switching which is presented through audio-visual media, and the
later deals with analyzing the code-switching through experimental-behavioral events
like self-paced reading (Van Hell, et al., 2018).
Conclusion
A thorough review of theories and approaches to code-switching has made it clear that
various sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and structural approaches to code-switching
have a tendency to overlap one another in different studies. It can be a perplexing task for
researchers to sift through these theories and approaches and clearly demarcate their
boundaries. This overview has attempted to clearly demarcate these three major
approaches through their evolution with time. This overview offered readers an insight
into compartmentalized approaches to code-mixing by enumerating various theories and
research areas.
277

References
 Adler, R. M., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Novick, J. M. (2020). Does integrating a code-
switch during comprehension engage cognitive control?. Journal of experimental
psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 46(4), 741.
 Albarillo, F. (2018). Information code-switching: A study of language references in
academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 79(5), 624.
 Albirini, A. (2011). The sociolinguistic functions of codeswitching between standard
Arabic and dialectal Arabic. Language in Society, 40, 537–562.
 Albirini, A. (2014a). Toward understanding the variability in the language
proficiencies of Arabic heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18
(6), 730–765.
 Albirini, A. (2014b). The socio-pragmatics of dialectal codeswitching by the Al-
„Keidaat Bedouin speakers. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(1), 121–147.
 Albirini, A., & Chakrani, B. (2016). Switching codes and registers: An analysis of
heritage Arabic speakers‟ sociolinguistic competence. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 21(3), 317-339.
 Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. John Benjamins Publishing.
 Auer, P. (1995). The pragmatics of code-switching: In L. Milroy, & P. Muysken
(Eds), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-
switching (115-135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation: language, interaction and identity.
New York: Routledge.
 Auer, P. and Muhamedova, R. (2005). „Embedded language‟ and „matrix language‟
in insertional language mixing: Some problematic cases. Rivista di Linguistica 17.1,
35-54.
 Bhatt, R., & Bolonyai, A. (2008). Code-switching and optimal grammars.
Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 44(2),
109–122.
 Bilgin, S. S. (2016). Code Switching in English Language Teaching (ELT) Teaching
Practice in Turkey: Student Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Identity. Educational
Research and Reviews, 11(8), 686-702.
 Blom, J., & Gumperz, J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structure: code-
switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes. (Eds.), Directions in
Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (407-434). Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
 Blom, J., & Gumperz, J. (2000). Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-
switching in Norway. In L. Wei (Ed.). The bilingualism reader, (111-136). London:
Routledge.

 Bokamba, E. G. (1989). Are there syntactic constraints on code฀mixing? World
Englishes, 8(3), 277-292.
 Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (Vol. 16). Cambridge:
Cambridge University press.
 Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. (G. Raymond & M. Adamson,
Trans.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
 Callahan, L. (2004). Spanish/English Codeswitching in a Written Corpus (Vol. 27).
Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
 Chakrani, B. (2016). „Am I Arab? Not Arab?‟ The performance of stance through
the deictic construction of identity. Al-„Arabiyya, 49.
 Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of
Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
 Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
 Clyne, M. G. (1991). Community Languages: The Australian Experience.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Davies, E., & Bentahila, A. (2006). Code switching and the globalisation of popular
music: The case of North African rap and rai. Multilingua, 25, 367–392
 De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual Production model, Levelts‟ speaking model adapted.
Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-24.
 Di Sciullo, M., Muysken, P. and Singh, R. (1986). Government and code-mixing.
Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 1–24.
 Gal, S. (1979). Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual
Austria. New York, NY: Academic Press.
 Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
 Gardner-Chloros, P. (2017). Historical and modern studies of code-switching: A
tale of mutual enrichment. Multilingual Practices in Language History: English and
Beyond, 15, 19.
 Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (1991). Accommodation theory:
Communication, context, and consequences. In H. Giles, J. Coupland and Coupland,
N. (eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics, (1–
68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
 Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism.
Massachusetts: Harvard University.
 Grosjean, F. (2000). Bilingual. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
 Gumperz, J. (1958). Dialect differences and social stratification in a North Indian
village. American Anthropologist, 60(4), 668-682.
279

 Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 Heller, M. (1988). Introduction. In M. Heller (Ed.). Codeswitching: Anthropological
and sociolinguistic perspectives (Vol. 48). Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter.
 Joshi, K. (1985). Processing of sentences with intrasentential code-switching. In: R.
Dowty, L. Karttunen, M. Zwicky (eds.) Natural Language Parsing: Psychological,
Computational and Theoretical Perspectives. (190–204). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 Kootstra, J. (2015). A psycholinguistic perspective on code-switching: Lexical,
structural, and socio-interactive processes.
 Mabule, D. R. (2015). What is this? Is it code switching, code mixing or language
alternating?. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(1), 339.
 MacSwan, J. (2000). The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence
from intrasentential code switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 3: 37–54.
 MacSwan, J.(1999). A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching.
Garland Press, New York.
 Mahootian, S. (1993). A null theory of codeswitching. Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL.
 McClure, E., & McClure, M. (1988) Micro and micro sociolinguistics dimensions
of code-switching in Vingard (Romania). In M., Heller, (ed.) Codeswitching:
Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives (25-53). Mouton/de Gruyter.
 Muysken, P. (1995). Code-switching and grammatical theory. In: L. Milroy and P.
Muysken (eds.), One Speaker, Two Languages. (177–198). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 Myers-Scotton, C. (1993a). Social motivations for codeswitching: evidence from
Africa. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
 Myers-Scotton, C. (1993b). Elite closure as a powerful language strategy: the
African case. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 103, 149-163.
 Myers-Scotton, C. (1997). Dwelling languages: Grammatical structure of
codeswitching. Oxford Clarendon Press.
 Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical
outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Myers-Scotton, C. (2004). How Codeswitching as an Available Option Empowers
Bilinguals. availble at file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/A596.pdf.
 Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). Natural codeswitching knocks on the laboratory door.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 9, 203–212.
 Myers-Scotton, C., and Bolonyai, A. (2001). Calculating speakers: Codeswitching
in a rational choice model. Language in Society, 30(01), 1-28.

 Nilep, C. (2006). Code switching” in sociocultural linguistics. Colorado research in
linguistics, 19(1), 1.
 Panhwar, F. (2018). Multilingualism in Sindh, Pakistan: the functions of
codeswitching used by educated, multilingual, Sindhi women and the factors driving
its use. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Sussex, UK.
 Panhwar, F., Khatwani, M. and Abbasi, I, (2018). Language Politics in Pakistan
and its sociolinguistics impacts on Sindh: A critique. Grassroots, 52(2).
 Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español.
Linguistics, 18, 581-618.
 Poplack, S. (2000). Sometimes I‟ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español:
Toward a typology of code-switching. The bilingualism reader, 18(2), 221-256.
 Poplack, S., and Meechan, M. (1995). Patterns of language mixture: Nominal
structure in Wolof-French and Fongbe-French bilingual discourse. In L. Milroy and
P. Muysken (Eds.). One speaker two languages: cross disciplinary perspectives (pp.
199-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Rampton (1995 Rampton, B. (1995). Language crossing and the problematisation of
ethnicity and socialisation. Pragmatics, 5, 485-513.
 Romaine, S. (1995). (1st
ed.).Bilingualism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
 Sankoff, D. and Poplack, S. (1981). A formal grammar for code-switching.
Research on Language and social interaction (14(1), 3-45.
 Santorina, B., and Mahootian, S. (1995). Codeswitching and the syntactic status
ofadnominal adjectives.Lingua. 96 (1), 1-27.
 Sapir, E. (1929). “The Status of Linguistics as a Science.” Language 5(4):
207-214.
 Schmidt, A. (2014). Between the language code-switching in bilingual
communication. Humburg: Anchor Academic Publishing.
 Shah, M., Furqan, A., & Zaman, K. M. (2019). A Sociolinguistic Investigation of
the Code Switching Practices of Students Outside Classroom in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 5(3), 497-
504.
 Song, J. (2019). Language socialization and code-switching: a case study of a Korean
–English bilingual child in a Korean transnational family, International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22:2, 91-106, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2016.
1231165
 Treffers-Daller, J. (2009). Code-switching and transfer: An exploration of
similarities and differences. In: B. E. Bullock and A. J. Toribio (eds.) Cambridge
Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching. (58-74). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
281

 Van Hell, J. G., Fernandez, C. B., Kootstra, G. J., Litcofsky, K. A., & Ting, C. Y.
(2018). Electrophysiological and experimental-behavioral approaches to the study of
intra-sentential code-switching. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(1), 134-
161.
 Vogt, H. (1954). “Language Contacts.” Word 10(2-3): 365-374.
 Wei, L. (2000). Unequal election of morphemes in adult second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 106-140.
 Wei, L. (2002). What do you want me to say? On the Conversation Analysis
approach to bilingual interaction. Language in Society, 31(02), 159-180.
 Wei, L. (2005). “How can you tell?”: towards a common sense explanation of
conversational code-switching. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(3), 375-389.
 Weinreich U. (1953/1968). Languages in contact. Mouton, The Hague
 Wood, N.I. (2019). Departing from Doctor-Speak: a Perspective on Code-Switching
in the Medical Setting. J GEN INTERN MED 34, 464–466 https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11606-018-4768-0
 Woolard, K. A. (1988). Codeswitching and comedy in Catalonia. In Heller, M. (Ed.).
(1988). Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguisti perspectives (Vol. 48)
(48, 53). Walter de Gruyter.
 Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York.
Wiley-Blackwell.

An Overview Of Theories And Approaches To Code-Switching

More Related Content

Similar to An Overview Of Theories And Approaches To Code-Switching (20)

More from Claire Webber (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

An Overview Of Theories And Approaches To Code-Switching