Free online reading
List of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
1.2 Objectives of the study
1.3 Research questions
1.4 Scope of the study
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Bilingualism and diglossia
2.2 How bilingual speakers acquire second language
2.3 Code switching/mixing in a multilingual society
2.4 Code switching/mixing in Everyday Life
2.5 Factors accelerating code switching/mixing
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
3.3 Study Instrument
3.4 Likert Scale
3.5 Pilot Study
3.6 Procedure for Data Collection
3.7 Procedure for Data Analysis
Chapter 4 Data Analysis, Interpretations and Findings
4.1 General Factors
4.2 Language and Linguistic Factors
4.3 Social and Situational Factors
4.4 Levels of language and linguistics
4.5 Levels of social and Situational
Chapter 5 Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations
First and foremost we want to thank Allah Almighty, who gave us knowledge and opportunity to complete this research project and His Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ﷺ, who spread the light of knowledge.
We would like to say a lot of thanks to our beloved parents, whose love, prayers and selfless effort motivate us to complete this study. We also want to thank our families, friends and relatives, whose support and help is always there with us.
We want to express our deep gratitude and thanks to Madam Maria dogar, the chairman (Supervisor) of this research project. It has been an honorable experience to work under his kind supervision. We want to thank our member and all the teachers who taught us, they are the real source of inspiration for us in our research project.
Thanks to every one Stay blessed all.
May Allah Almighty bless all of them with All His blessings and always make them helpful and encouraging for others.
The aim of this study is to find the major factors that accelerate code switching/mixing among bilingual students in Lahore. These factors are divided into the categories of general, linguistic and language, social and situational factors. In this study the difference between these factors are also explored. We used quantitative research approach in that we used instrument close ended questionnaires and data was collected from the students of University of the Punjab, Lahore. Data has been analyzed by use of software SPSS. Data analysis showed that there is a significance difference between language/linguistic factors and social/situational factors. The students switch/mix more due to language and linguistic factors as compared to social and situational factors.
Key Words: Bilingualism, Diglossia, Bilingual, Code Switching/mixing.
Chapter 1 Introduction
One of the regular bilingual practices, which is experienced among the bilingual speakers all the time is code switching. Before thinking about code switching first we ought to realize what bilingualism is. Distinctive linguists have characterized bilingualism in an unexpected way. As Per Wald (1974), Bloomfield described bilingualism as local control of the two dialects.
On the other hand, Haugen (1987), a large portion of students has received a wide definition conceded as a bilingual one who had some information and control on the syntactic structure of the second dialect. A bilingual individual must have the capacity to comprehend the meaning while perusing or composing or listening or talking in the second dialect in distinctive circumstances or settings in which the two dialects are utilized. For instance, a bilingual corporate official can utilize his mother tongue (Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi or Saraiki etc.) while having a discussion with the relatives in his/her home and can utilize second language (English) while giving a formal presentation in his/her office or a bilingual student can utilize his/her mother tongue while talking with his/her companions in the college grounds and can utilize second language (English) while introducing something before the class. In the same way, when a local speaker takes in an outside dialect and he/she can interpret diverse focuses by interpreting those focuses in that remote dialect, then that individual is additionally thought to be a bilingual individual. Every one of these activities performed by a bilingual individual are called code switching.
As per Heredia & Altarriba (2001), Code switching , or code blending, happens when a word or an expression in one dialect substitutes for a word or expression in a brief moment dialect.
Therefore, when a bilingual individual, from one dialect, gets words or sentences to another dialect (second or target dialect) then this activity is called code switching/mixing. Individuals from distinctive English speaking Urdu and Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi or Saraiki etc. Groups in our nation are thought to be multilingual speakers of the mother tongue (Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi or Saraiki etc.), Urdu and English.
Bilingual practices of the individuals from such groups depend on different variables, like what is the general public's span, how the general public is organized, how the populace is conveyed to the general public, the recorded and political foundation and all the temperate issues of that specific culture. While discussing the development and the populace dissemination of the general public, certain demographic attributes like the issues of social class imbalance, sexual orientation part, age breaking point, religion and certain individual qualities like identity sort, training, nationality, ethnicity, relationship status, family relationship esteem, and so on mechanically approach base in the examination. Along these lines, demographic and individual attributes are situated in light of conception, relocation, maturing, passing and so forth. On the other hand, both the social structures like history, legislative issues, economy and so on and operators of socialization like family, companion gathering, school, group, religion, working environment, media and so on. Shape the demographic and individual attributes of a gathering of individuals of the general public in a little field or of the entire society from a more extensive angle monetarily, socially, socially and organically.
We are also bilingual individuals of this society and we frequently confront with this situation when the students switch/mix their code according to the circumstances. Bilingual or multilingual students do this again and again; sometimes they do it consciously or unconsciously. We don't know the actual reason for this, but it makes us curious to find out the actual factors which are responsible for code switching/mixing among students. We can say it is habitual for some time or maybe it’s natural for bilinguals, but we have to find out the exact reason that why the bilingual students do this? Therefore, we choose the topic of factors accelerating code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level.
In our topic we choose university students because when we come to the university environment, we find out the bilingual behavior of students explore at a high level in this place. When the students have a conversation with a group of friends, they use native language, but when they are in a classroom environment and have to present something they used to speak in English over there. Therefore, it seems interesting to find out the reason of code switching/mixing.
1.1 Statement of the problem
The study explored the major factors accelerating code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore.
1.2 Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study are to:
- Explore or to find out the different factors that accelerate code switching/mixing among the bilingual students at the university level.
- Explore or to find out the language and linguistic factors that accelerate code switching/mixing.
- Explore or to find out the social and situational factors that accelerate code switching/mixing.
- Compare language/linguistic and social/situational factors.
1.3 Research questions
1. What are the language/linguistic factors that accelerate code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore?
2. What are the social/situational factors that accelerate code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore?
3. What is the difference between language/linguistics and social/situational factors for accelerating code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore?
1.4 Significance of the study
- This study will help to understand the one of the most important bilingual behavior that is code switching/mixing.
- This study will help to find what types of factors are more prominent in students that make them to switch/mix.
- This study will help to explore the major language and linguistic factors that accelerate code switching/mixing.
- This study will help to explore the major social and situational factors that accelerate code switching/mixing.
- The study will tell us the difference between language/linguistic factors and social/situational factors.
Researchers due to short of time and lack of financial and other resources collected data from only one university which is University of the Punjab, Lahore.
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Bilingualism and Diglossia
Bilingualism is essentially the utilization of two dialects for communications purposes. Bilingualism is characterized in an all the way, we see the presence of diverse sorts of bilingualism like, coordinate bilingualism, compound bilingualism, sub-ordinate bilingualism and so forth with distinctive social orders. The distinctive sorts of bilingualism also make diverse Diglossic circumstances in those social orders. Diglossia is the utilization of two dialects of a specific discourse group, where one dialect is utilized formally or authoritatively and the other one is utilized casually or informally. Charles Ferguson presented Diglossia in 1959. In the advanced world, we see different elements of Diglossia like, capacity, distinction, scholarly legacy, obtaining, institutionalization, steadiness, sentence structure, dictionary, phonology and so on, which assume fundamental parts in making Diglossic circumstances and in accelerating the continuation of Diglossia in diverse social orders. Diglossia and bilingualism are the two most essential working components of social-semantics, which have significant consequences of present day social orders.
In the large number of the present country world, we see, other than the standard dialects utilized by the local speakers discourse groups, there exist some different dialects, which are additionally utilized regularly by those speakers of those discourse groups on different events. According this social-semantic community, where with the presence of one standard dialect and the existence of another dialect and both the dialects have distinctive capacities to fulfill in the discourse group and diverse parts to play in the general public is called Diglossia and such circumstance is called
Diglossia circumstance. As Wardhaugh (2002), A Diglossic circumstance exists in an overall population when it has two different codes which show a clear capacity, practical partition; that is, one code is utilized in one arrangement of circumstances and the other in a completely diverse set.
"Capacity" is the word, utilized here to separate the two dialects utilized as a part of a discourse group, in light of the fact that relying upon their capacities, the two's status dialects are allocated, which at long last results in passing on the parts played by those dialects in a general public. Presently, the fact is that it is the force, hold by a gathering of individuals and the famous, claimed by a gathering of individuals in a discourse group, which figures out which working dialect will have the status of the High variety or Low variety and will assume the immense part or weakest part in the general public. For instance, in a general public the individuals, who are the local speakers of a sure dialect holds essential positions and is politically-monetarily capable in the general public. In this way, their dialect may get the status of the High variety in that specific discourse group and the dialect of the weaker, less capable and less number of social order's strength gets the status of low variety. In this way, High variety can just support the Low variety, if High assortment is the native language of the local elites.
On the other hand, we can't totally surrender the probability of the other way around, that due to the enhanced vocabulary, standard linguistic use, worldwide status and overall acknowledgment of the second's dialect gather, the first's dialect gathering may get the status of Low variety and the second's dialect gathering may get the status of High assortment. Casually, Low assortment can accomplish power over the High variety and can replace with High variety. In this way, which is a High mixture to the first gathering may appear to be a Low assortment to the second gathering and which is Low variety to the first gathering may appear to be a High variety to the second gathering. Presently, on the off chance that anybody blends these two mixed varieties and utilize High mixed variations in a Low space or Low mixture in High area, then the local speakers will think that it's unusual and even absurd and shameful.
Such movement won't be acknowledged effortlessly and that essentially. The notoriety issue of these two assortments is exceptionally evident and intelligible. In a specific social setting, High assortment is constantly considered to have incredible abstract esteem and is utilized to compose formal notes of openly talking, authority papers and so on. Then again, Low mixture is thought to be less interesting and undignified in capacity in that specific social setting. High mixture is frequently given the status of a national and now and again even a worldwide dialect. On the other hand, Low assortment is thought to be talked by minority individuals. In spite of the fact that the etymologists assert that Low assortment is obtained as essential dialect in the first place, the local researchers claim High assortment as their unparalleled dialect. So this point likewise underpins the way that High assortment more often than not has more mind boggling strained frameworks, sex frameworks, understandings, punctuation and syntaxes composed by conventional local grammarians, more enhanced vocabulary and more unique morphophonemic than those of Low varieties.
Yet we can't totally surrender the chance of the other way around for this situation as well. Names of a few spots of the cutting edge world, where we can discover diglossia and diglossic circumstances are, African American vernacular English, standard Arabic and nearby everyday Arabic in all the Arab world, Shadhubhasha before nineteenth century and Cholitbhasha after nineteenth century in Bangladesh, standard Malay and Brunei Malay in Brunei, existing together current Spanish with 36 other local dialects, every one of them official and some broadly talkedby the populace like Aymara and Quechua in Bolivia, Catalan in Catalonia, established Chinese before nineteenth century and cutting edge Chinese amid nineteenth and twentieth century in China, standard French and Walloon in Belgium's Southern Region Walloonia, Provencal (Occitan) and French in Provence and southern France, French and Alsatian in Alsace- Lorraine in mid-twentieth century, Spanish or Portuguese as High assortment and Galicia as Low mixed bag in Galician culture, Swiss-German and French-German in Switzerland, conversational Dimotiki also, standard Katharevousa in Greece until 1970, the Shuddh Hindi and the Hindustani Hindi in India, French in Valle d'Aosta of Italy, German in Bolzano-Bozen of Italy, Slovene in Trieste and Gorizia of Italy , Slovene in Friulian Slovenia of Italy, Molise Croats in Arabeshgroups of southern Italy, Resian tongue in Friuli Venezia Giulia of Italy, Alemannic German in Valle d'Aosta of Italy, Jamaican standard English also, Jamaican Patios in Jamaica, Leonese as Low mixed bag and Mirandese as High mixture in Spain and Portugal, standard English and Maltese in Malta, advanced Spanish and Guaraní indigenous dialect in Paraguay, Polish as the official dialect and Latin as the casual dialect after late sixteenth century in Poland, standard European Portuguese and European Portuguese in nineteenth century in Portugal, Church Slavonic as the official dialect what's more, Russian as the everyday dialect in Russia, Persianised/Arabicized Urdu and everyday Urdu in Pakistan, Mandarin, Teochew, Hokkian and Hakka alongside Malay furthermore, English in Chinese group of Riau Islands, abstract Sinhala and spoken Sinhala in Sri Lanka, Singapore standard English and Singapore casual English in Singapore, Tagalog in Luzon of Philippines, Classic Senthamizh Tamil and casual Iyatramizh.Tamil in Tamil Nadu, a state in southern India and northern, eastern locales of Sri Lanka alongside Kannada and Sinhalese, both standard Russian and standard Ukrainian as High mixed bags and non-standard vernaculars of these High variety as Low variety in Ukraine and so on.
Bilingualism is the point at which a man is surely understood of in any event a few components of the structure and the realities of the linguistic use of the second dialect. As Haugen (1987), give me a chance to rethink these as a local capability in more than one dialect. In any case, this is just a perfect, hypothetical model: few, if any really accomplish this. Later, students have embraced a wide definition, conceded as a bilingual one who had information and know what about the second dialect.
Moreover, she/he must have the ability to in any occasion appreciate by listening or can talk or read or write in that second language in unmistakable circumstances. By particular circumstances it is suggested the various settings in which the two vernaculars are used. Case in point, if a man uses Bangla while having exchanges with the relatives in his/her home and uses English while giving formal presentations in his/her office, then these two absolutely unmistakable associations make coordinate bilingualism. In case a student uses Bangla while chatting with his/her friends in school grounds and uses English while indicating something before the class, then it makes compound bilingualism. In the blink of an eye, when a nearby speaker takes in an outside vernacular, then s/he depends upon to disentangle particular centers by translating those centers in that remote tongue. Such associations make sub-ordinate bilingualism. Names of a couple spots of the present day world, where we can find bilingualism are, among the countries of Africa, Kenya has English and Swahili, Somalia has Somali and Arabic, Sudan has English and Arabic, Madagascar has French and Malagasy, Swaziland has English and Swati et cetera. Among the countries of America, Colombia has Spanish and Afro Caribbean English, Paraguay has Spanish and Guarani, Honduras has Spanish and Afro Caribbean English, Uruguay has Spanish and Portuguese, Venezuela has Spanish and Afro Caribbean English, etc. Among the countries of Asia, Cambodia has Khmer and French, the Philippines has Filipino and English, Hong Kong has English and Chinese, Laos has Lao and French, Vietnam has Vietnamese and French et cetera. Among the countries of Europe, the Czech Republic has Czech and Polish, Estonia has Estonian and Russian, Ireland has Irish and English, Latvia has Latvian and Russian, Romania has Romanian and Hungarian and so on. There is a nearby connection in the middle of bilingualism and Diglossia. For instance, a Bangladeshi migrant to Chicago is able to talk both in his/her native language Bangla and in the outside dialect English. Be that as it may, while corresponding with the local group s/he can't utilize Bangla. This is a case of bilingualism without Diglossia. To abstain from reaching to the masses, while having a discussion with his/her other European partners, a European chief can talk in a certain European dialect, which is new to the greater part of the Asian laborers of a face plant in Asia. The supervisor can utilize a mediator in the event that she/he needs to talk with the Asian workers. This is an illustration of Diglossia without bilingualism. Presently, in Germany, the Germans know both the standard German and Swiss German, which demonstrates the conjunction of Diglossia and bilingualism in a general public.
Along these lines, it can be said that, both Diglossia and bilingualism are vital issues of social linguistics. In a general public, in a Diglossic circumstance and in a bilingual connection, we ought to never let a dialect get totally lost or vanished. We ought to be well disposed towards the general population of all discourse groups in a general public, we ought to make them feel pleased for their dialects and we ought to urge them to utilize their dialects consistently. We must be attentive of the progressions and adjustments in a general public, brought about by Diglossia and bilingualism. We must be extremely cautious that such changes don't offer ascent to any startling circumstance.
2.2 How Bilingual speakers acquire a second language
The bilingual behavior of the people developing the dissatisfaction among the linguists with the second dialect acquiring procedures of the distinctive bilingual people, in early 1970. The fundamental explanation for this dissatisfaction with how a man acquired a second dialect and turned into a speaker of two dialects was intensely reliant on behaviorism. The individual who first thought of something other than what's expected around then was Stephen Krashen. Apart from the ordinary thoughts, Krashenis definitely comprehended for his "Monito Model" as this was as this was the main second dialect acquiring model, which was impacted by Noam Chomsky's hypothesis of first dialect procurement. As indicated by Faltis (1984), he has been learning and telling Krashen's Monitor Model for quite a long while now. Krashen adds a lot of significance to the clarifications in the middle of acquiring and learning and argues that the sole capacity of conscious learning is to screen yield, which has been acquired through which means full cooperation in the second dialect. For him, acquisition is the thing that permits dialect understudies to start expressions and increase familiarity with the second vernacular. Krashen at first depicted this model as far as five hypotheses in the mid-1970s. The hypotheses are the acquiring learning hypothesis, the filter hypothesis, the common racist hypothesis, the data hypothesis and the screen hypothesis. On the off chance that we take a look at these theories, we will find that, in spite of being discussed and criticized by numerous, how the thoughts of this model turned out to be exceptionally persuasive between the transitional time of second dialect procurement and took "learning principles or alternatively keep ownership of dialogues" like thought based was procured to "using the vernacular with an attendant on implying" like thought based acquiring.
On the occasion that we take a glance at the first theory, the procurement, learning hypothesis, we can see that Krashen has made a complexity between the two terms "acquiring" and "learning". We get the components of second dialect, when we are presented to tests of second dialect. Not that we see every one of the examples to which we get uncovered, however, we comprehend in any event some of them. This comprehension of such specimens happens in an extremely normal manner. The procedure is approaching on comparative like a kid obtains the components of its first dialect. At the point when a tyke grabs its first dialect, it gives careful consideration to the distinctive types of the dialect and the grabbing procedure is done normally. However, when we learn the second dialect, we need to give careful consideration to the diverse guidelines and types of second dialect.
Consequently, the learning procedure is not normal like the scoring procedure. The framework that we obtain starts our expressions and the second hypothesis, the screen hypothesis discusses the two frameworks; one is the acquired framework and another is the learning framework. The acquired framework is in charge of our unconstrained dialect utilization. The scholarly framework assumes the part of an "editorial manager" or "monitor". It rolls out minor improvements and shines the creation of the obtained framework. Be that as it may, the speaker or the author must have sufficient time, must consent to deliver right dialect and must have strong learning of the applicable guidelines for such observing to happen. The third hypothesis, the regular request hypothesis say that second dialect acquiring disclose in the arrangements which are unsurprising and just about in the same way first dialect procurement deals. It is a bit much that a speaker will first acquire and realize those dialect features, which are nearly simple. For instance, however, it is simpler, some advanced second dialect speakers even neglect to apply a "-s" to the third individual solitary verbs in the current state while having unconstrained discussion.
The fourth hypothesis, the info theory says that, when somebody is presented to comprehensible dialect and the dialect contains important information or formal direction at i+1 level, then acquiring happens adequately. The level of dialect which is now obtained by a man is spoken to by 'i'. Dialect or the dialect components like words, linguistic structures, parts of punctuation and so forth, which are only a stage best the officially acquire dialect level is spoken to by the illustration '+1'. Give us a chance to surmise that there is an arrangement of dialect boxes. Every container has some dialect components in it. On the off chance that a man gains the components of box 'i', then it is normal or considered that she/he can get a couple of components of next box or the "i+1" box. Presently, the inquiry is the reason the important information or formal direction ought to be given at i+1 level? In the event that the learner has been furnished with a presentation to the specimens of second dialect just and with no formal directions, then the components' acquiring of the second dialect by that learner will be lesser. Then again, if the learner is furnished with formal guidelines in addition to a satisfactory introduction to the second's examples dialect, then his/her acquiring of the second's components dialect will be more prominent. As indicated by Ioup (1984), Not all the information is useful at a given point in the learner's improvement. The information which serves as a learning guide is what contains structures which are just past the syntactic unpredictability of those found in the interlanguage sentence structure of the acquirer. Expressed all the more formally, given some formative level i of the acquirer, the important data for that learner will contain structures at the i + 1 level. A result of this hypothesis is that formal direction as tenet seclusion and clarification, criticism, and mistake rectification is of no quality in the naturalistic acquiring procedure.
Presently, a few individuals don't as matter of courses acquire a dialect effectively despite the fact that they are presented to extensive amounts of fathomable and proper information. The allegorical obstruction that keeps learners from doing as such is the "affective feature". By "influence", Krashen in his last theory, the fall of filtrating hypothesis has suggested to passionate states, emotions, dispositions, thought processes, needs and so forth and has also said that a tensed, on edge or exhausted learner may sift through information and making it inaccessible for procurement.
So it can be said that Krashen's "Screen Model" and particularly the information hypothesis has centered their consideration on improving data, as well as on understandable data containing i+1, which are structures slightly past the learner's or acquirer's present condition of ability and are all that much fundamental for dialect procurement. It is not guaranteed by the data theory that improved information, extensions or working class guardian discourse will be gotten by all acquirers. The case that conceivable information which is accessible to acquirers in each of the circumstances portrayed will also be gotten by the acquirers makes this hypothesis a really accommodating one for comprehension the bilingual practices of bilingual masses.
It is surely understood for his "Perceptual Loop Theory of Self-checking" alternately "Yield Screening Model". He thought about this speculation in his book "Speaking: From Intention to Articulation", which was distributed from MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1989. He has partitioned his hypothesis in six stages. The stages are calculated arrangement, syntactic encoding, morpho-phonological encoding, phonetic encoding, verbalization what's more, self- discernment. The "Yield screening Model, " delineates that an individual before expressing, can take care of his/her own particular inside discourse. Moreover, his or her self-delivered obvious discourse can also be gone with him/her. An individual, who can take care of the discourse delivered by other individuals, can likewise go to discourse created without anyone else's input/her just in the same way. So the discourse created by individuals is watched over by the people themselves. Levelt’s observing model fundamentally talks about phonetic issues from the perspective of discourse generation and little detail of the inward elements of appreciation framework is examined in this model.
Levelt has separated his checking framework into two parts. The primary part is the calculated segment and the second one is the phonetic segment. As per Payne & Whitney (2002), As per Levelt's model (1989, 1995), expressions start as non-language particular informative goals in what level mention to as the conceptualized. Generation surrounded the employment of the Conceptualizer is to focus the semantic substance of the articulation. The proverbial message produced by the Conceptualizer is kept up in Working Memory and nourished into the Formulator where the lemmas or lexical things are chosen that most precisely speak to the semantic substance of every piece of the proverbial message.
The linguistics segment is partitioned into two subsystems; one subsystem for creation and another for comprehension. A formulator and an articulator are the etymological mechanical assembly into which the creation framework is further subdivided. Accepting a proverbial message from the theoretical part and on the premise of the lexical and linguistic data, delivering a phonetic arrangement is the undertaking of the formulator. The articulator then changes the phonetic arrangement into talking expression. At the point when the creation framework wraps up its part then the understanding framework begins doing its occupying. At the point whencomprehension is in advance, the audition part maps the talked articulation to a phonetic string from which a parsed discourse is figured by the discourse comprehension framework.
2.3 Code switching/mixing in a multilingual society
In a multilingual society, we can see that other than altogether utilizing the dialect, which fundamentally symbolizes the uniqueness of their own group; the bilingual individuals from one group on different events switch to different dialects, which are likewise utilized only by the individuals from different groups and which are the generous images of personality of those groups. Such a socio-etymological course of action, where the bilingual individuals from distinctive groups switch between dialects keeping in mind the end goal to perform diverse social capacities in like manner, is characterized as "gathering multilingualism". According to Hudson (1996), In the group of multilingualism the diverse dialects are constantly utilized as a part of distinctive circumstances. Also, the decision is constantly controlled by social guidelines.
It is the arrangement of the social principles of a general public, which administers the time and place of the code, exchanging and code blending done by the bilingual individuals from distinctive groups. These standards additionally direct the dialects' elements, contingent upon which distinctive dialects are relegated their parts to play in diverse groups and which at long last chooses which dialects will symbolize which groups. In this way, code, exchanging and code blending relies on upon how a dialect is organized deliberately and how a dialect is utilized as a part of diverse etymological circumstances or settings.
Society coordinates the method of creation of dialects accurately on the premise of dialect exercises at the convergence of expanded social elements. These elements additionally differ starting with one group then onto the next. Any code is at first bite and optionally choked by the general public. Now and again, society, keeping in mind the end goal to practice its energy deliberately, has controlled the dialects of its individuals. Society first begins developing the dialect of its individuals from the main issue; then chokes it slowly again upon them lastly along these lines shapes the brain research of regular individuals for it. In this way, it is clear that the distinctive capacities and parts of any dialect are portrayed and dictated by the general public and they contrast every once in a while, the companion bunch. According to Hudson (1996), Each language has a social capacity which no other dialect could satisfy. The fundamental explanation behind protecting the dialects is a result of the social qualifications that they symbolize. The part of any dialect must be common and unique, while it is expected and normal these days. Time to time, the part of any dialect has been altered by the general public. Dialects have not been steady, but rather have been changing, reliably by society for its own particular hobby and henceforth have been quickened the code, exchanging and code blending among the bilingual and multilingual individuals from diverse groups.
Presenting the fact of the matter is that, it is the financial force held by the bilingual individuals from a group and the social glory claimed by them, which frames the social principles and thus control which dialects, utilized by the bilingual individuals from a group, will fill which need where, when and how. For examples, the bilingual individuals from a group, who are the local speakers of a sure dialect hold imperative positions and are politically-financially effective in the general public; with real parcel of the aggregate populace has a place with this group. Thus, their local dialect may assume a prestigious part in that specific group, as well as in the general public and the dialect utilized by the less effective and less populated group won't get that distinction. As Hudson (1996), We saw another illustration of the same example in the examination of an Indian town Kupwar, where three dialects are utilized as a part of the request to keep up the rank framework.
Since the eminence issue of two dialects is extremely obvious, we can without much of a stretch comprehend one bilingual individual from one group may feel uncomfortable to utilize the dialects/he utilizes with the individuals from his/her group, thus changes to another dialect while having a discussion with an individual from another group, which that individual from that group is acclimated to. Aside from this social refinement kept up by the diverse dialects of distinctive bilingual groups, diverse dialects as indicated by their status and acknowledgment in the general public, have diverse linguistic use framework, phonology, morphology, language structure, semantics, vocabulary and so forth. A man may have great learning of a dialect. S/he may know every one of the elements of that dialect exceptionally well. Likewise, s/he may have had a substantial number of data about that dialect. On the other hand, just being acquainted with the elements or being familiar with numerous data of that dialect can't make that individual a compelling communicator in that dialect. To convey thoughts or to trade data effectively, she/he must provide for preparing the information for all intents and purposes on the spot by making a setting through a moderate discussion. Presently, s/he won't at all have the capacity to make a connection of any discussion if the person(s) to whom s/he will talk don't have the foggiest idea about that specific dialect. As Hudson (1996), Any individual who talks more than one dialect picks between them as indicated by the circumstances. The main thought, obviously, is which dialect will be intelligible to the individual tended to; as a rule, speakers pick a dialect which the other individual can get it.
This is another enormous motivation behind why bilingual speakers regularly switch or blend codes. As indicated by Hudson (1996), The progressions for the most part happen pretty much haphazardly to the extent topic is concerned, yet they appear to be constrained by the sentence structure. There are sure components of diverse sentence structures like, associated discourse, expressive gadgets, Lexis, arrangement dialect, mental/social handling of dialect, data, preparing and so on which are critical for a speaker to be impatient with while identifying with others. At the point when certain sounds are absorbed, evoked, connected, focused on or contracted in a discourse, then that discourse is called associated discourse like, the joined discourse "I'd've gone" stands for "I would have gone". Once in a while when a dialect is talked in an eye to eye association, the pitch and stretch of specific parts of articulations are changed, volume and pace are fluctuated, different physical and non-verbal expressions are appearing by the speakers. The great supply of a mixed bag of expressions for diverse dialect capacities in unconstrained discourse and particular talking settings like, concurring or dissenting, communicating astonishment, stun or objection and so forth. In a discussion, some of the time the speaker neglects to comprehend the individual's expectation identified with and once in a while the individual addressed neglects to comprehend the speaker's clarification. As Hudson (1996), The inspiration driving code-changing is all accounts to symbolize a fairly uncertain circumstance for which neither language in solitude would be quite right. The language, which we use to clear up such disarray and to indicate how our discourse is built; is known as "transaction dialect". To be a compelling speaker, a man ought to utilize the dialect to understand as well as to pass on the planned which means effectively. For that, she/he needs to recover the words and expressions from his/her memory furthermore speaking to those linguistically and propositionally fitting groupings successfully. Furthermore, they have to \ correspond with one another through a dynamic discussion, which will satisfy all the criteria of a productive discussion like, tuning in, comprehension speaker's inclination, turn taking and so on. Likewise, the speaker needs to prepare the data; which implies that the data must be activated from the memory and she/he needs to react to that snap quickly for his/her group of onlookers. This does not happen dependably and subsequently now and again she/he needs to drop into his/her discourse, word(s) from another dialect and code exchanging and code blending occur. As per Hudson (1996), To get the right impact the speakers adjust the two dialects against one another as a sort of etymological mixed drink a couple expressions of one dialect, then a couple expressions of the other. These are few of the principle explanations of code, exchanging and code blending in a multilingual society.
2.4 Code switching/mixing in everyday life
All the time, we encounter distinctive sorts of code, exchanging and code blending in our day by day life. It is the circumstance or the discussion's point or the code's change itself, which empowers a man switch and blend codes. On the off chance that a man is with his/her guardians and relatives at home, normally use the native language for discussion. Speaking in a brief moment dialect or even in a standard type of another dialect with them will simply look odd and she/he may likewise confront feedback from a few of them. Luke Hudson (1996), The precepts association with the languages of different communities (home. Series. Italy) speaking standard Italian at home would be similar to wearing a suit, and communicating in German in the town would be similar to wearing black coat in the church. Presently, if she/he is having a discussion with one of his/her neighbors, who does not fit in with his/her same district and does not know the provincial vernacular of that specific society, then rather than utilizing the territorial lingo, she/he will utilize a standard dialect to finish the examination. Once more, when she/he is in the class addressing the students, according to direction by the college power, she/he is relied upon to utilize a second dialect for instance, English, as the medium of the learning. There may be a couple of facilitators or no utilization of some other standard dialect like, Bangla and truly no utilization of the provincial tongue permitted in the class. Paolillo (2011), characterized such code switching/mixing so as to exchange as situational code exchanging/mixing, Situational switching is code, exchanging that is molded by components of the circumstance in which an association happens. For instance, local speakers of Spanish in Texas by and large utilize Spanish in home settings, however, change to English in institutional settings (e.g., schools, government offices).
Along these lines, the code, exchanging, which is finished by this individual, differs from situation to situation and such exchanging can be characterized as a situational code exchanging. Presently, if a man is in the workplace and having chatter with one of his/her partners, who additionally fits in with his same district, then it will probably happen that, she/he is going to do the discussion with that associate in their local dialect. It is evident that, having a job in one's own particular provincial vernacular with an associate, who also has a place with the same area of the speaker, makes a more profound sentiment respectable. On the other hand, when she/he will have a discussion with that partner in regards to any official issue, then she/he needs to change to a standard dialect or, a formal dialect. Being in the workplace, having an official discussion with an associate in a casual code like the formal language, won't just look odd yet well as break the standard or tradition of a perfect discussion. As indicated by Nile (2006), The meaning of metaphorical exchanging depends on the utilization of two dialect assortments inside a single social setting. Blom and Gumperz depict associations between the representatives and occupants in the group, organization, office wherein welcome occur in the social dialect, however business is executed in the standard dialect.
Here, the same is seen as the code, exchanging done by this individual is not shifting from situation to situation. It is the change of subjects of the discussion and not the adjustment in the situation, which is choosing the kind of code, exchanging and this code exchanging, can be characterized as metaphorical code exchanging. Aside from these two sorts of code exchanging, a code blending may be seen in one's discourse. On the off chance that a Bangladeshi migrant is having a discussion with another Bangladeshi worker in London and some way or another figures out that, that individual also has a place to his/her same district in Bangladesh; all things considered, it will so happen that if there is any uncertainty appears in their discussion, for theclarification of which they may drop into English word(s) from Standard Bangla or from their local dialect, which they may discover more fit or suitable to clear the vagueness emerged in that specific discussion. In a split second subsequent to dropping word(s) from Standard Bangla or from their formal language in English, they will return back to English and will do their discussion in English at the end of the day. On the other hand, there may be redundant of this same activity every once in a while in the same discussion with the same speakers. Amuda (1994), In what I allude to as code-exchanging, the questions being referred to frame a piece of the same discourse act, participants occupied with this sort of dialect utilization are frequently unconscious of which dialect is utilized at any one time as the speakers are for the most part worried with the message substance of their verbalization.
In the above delineation as, neither the circumstance nor the point is the quickening component behind the code blending done by these two speakers. It is the code's change itself, which is creating this code blending and such bilingual conduct can be characterized as code blending.
2.5 Factors of code switching/mixing among bilinguals
A few analysts have concentrated on the capacities, qualities, deciding elements and impacts of code-exchanging in an extensive variety of etymology spaces. In an original work by Gumperz (1982) he distinguishes six elements of code, exchanging which are: Quotation, Addressee particular, Repetition, Interjection, Message capability and Personification.
In a study by Sert (2006) about the conceivable uses of code, exchanging in instructive connections in bilingual group, he discovers its capacity is to convey a validness to discussion and to help the peruse better find the thoughts being imparted. In this concentrate further components that focus Code Switching among understudies include: Equivalence, Floor holding, Reiteration, and Conflict control.
Auer (1998) distinguishes eight capacities, though Baker (2000) records 12. Auer concedes that such capacities are 'poorly characterized' and they are really a "blended sack" of distinctive measurements, for example, phonetic structure, conversational structure and capacity. Besides, they overlook group particular standards which rouse code, exchanging (Chan, 2003).
As indicated by a few researchers of phonetics, as cited in Ayeomoni (2006), the components of code, exchanging are: intra-bunch character, lovely inventiveness and the outflow of modernization.
Reyes (2004) composes that youngsters switch codes when they don't have the foggiest idea about the word in the gained or target dialect. Other exploration discoveries have demonstrated that one of the central points of code, exchanging is that component of the other dialect pass on which means, of the expected thought all the more precisely (Gumperz, 2004).
Specialists have watched that code, exchanging among Spanish-English bilinguals concentrate on 'lexical things', Turkish-Danish bilinguals concentrate on 'force wielding purposes' and French-English bilinguals concentrate on 'fitness and execution. Halliday (1975) then again, perspectives code, exchanging as satisfying the interpersonal capacity of correspondence. Here the blended dialect talked assumes the part of a go between. As it were, it is the utilization of dialect to go about as a go between in the middle of self and members in the informative occasion. In satisfying the social and referential capacities, code, exchanging is seen as the medium to pass on both social and etymological implications. Gumperz (1982) record samples of circumstances made to pass on, which means as given underneath:
1: To speak to the proficient. 2: To speak to the ignorant. 3: To pass on exact which means4: To ease correspondence, i.e., using the most brief and the least demanding course. 5: To arrange with more prominent power. 6: To catch consideration, i.e. elaborate, insistent, enthusiastic.7: To underline a point. 8: To convey all the more adequately. 9: To relate to a specific gathering. 10: To close the status hole. 11: To build up goodwill and backing.
Karen Kow (2003) recorded in her article a couple of conceivable conditions for code exchanging. A conditions' percentage given area,
1: Lack of single word in either dialect. 2: Some exercises have just been knowledgeable about one of the dialects. 3: Any ideas are less demanding to express in one of the dialects. 4: A misconception must be illuminated. 5: One wishes to make a sure corresponding impact. 6: One keeps on talking the dialect most recently utilized due to the trigger impact. 7: One needs to make a point. 8: One wishes to express gathering solidarity. 9: One wishes to bar someone else from the dialog.
Kow recommends that from the rundown above, it might be conceivable to anticipate which conditions follow up on a specific socio linguistic setting of code switching, for instance, when a man who does not have a word in English because of restricted vocabulary code switches by utilizing the lexical segment from his/her first dialect rather than English. In this way, the capacity here is to beat the dialect obstruction to which means making. Another illustration is a condition where the speaker, aiming to express gathering solidarity, utilizes code exchanging.
The capacity of the switch for this situation is to set up goodwill and compatibility. Essentially arrangement of conditions can be set up for the marvel of code, exchanging relying upon the social setting.
Some open elements of code switching can likewise be recorded by capacities that they attempt to finish. Among these, the accompanying ten capacities have been portrayed in the expert writing (Malik, 1994):
1: Lack of Facility. 2:Lack of Register. 3: Mood of the Speaker. 4: To emphasize a point.
5: Habitual Experience. 6: Semantic significance. 7: To show identity with a group.
8: To address a different audience. 9: Pragmatic reasons. 10: To attract attention.
The following four functions of classroom management (Canarajah, 1995) have been cited in the literature for the Tamil language-based student allowing for the switching to English at some points:
1: Opening the class. 2: Requesting help. 3: Managing discipline. 4: Teachers’ encouragements and compliments.
Meanwhile the functions of code switching/mixing for content transmission or four and have been cited (Canarajah, 1995) as below:
5: Reviewing a lesson. 6: Defining a word. 7: Explaining a concept. 8: Negotiating cultural relevance.
It is quite normal to encounter in any multilingual, multicultural setting various kinds of language switches, that is, changes brought about by the speakers’ selection of one language over the other and for several reasons. Various people from different socio-economic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds have different reasons for their choice of code switches/mixes.
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
In this research the researchers used the quantitative approach which requires a survey to collect the necessary data from the participants. The basic purpose of this research is to find out the factors which accelerate code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore.
In this research, the target population is the university level bilingual students from all over the Lahore.
In this research, the researchers have chosen the students from the University of the Punjab as a sample. The researchers for this research have used a type of non-probability sampling which is convenience sampling.
3.3 Study Instrument
The study instrument for the data collection was the questionnaire. The researchers used questionnaire because the questionnaire has a unique advantage and properly constructed and administered, it served as a more appropriate and useful data gathering device in the particular research report.
The questions researchers designed for their questionnaire is based on the literature review of their research. The researchers distinguished the factors of code switching /mixing in their questionnaire which is elaborated or discussed by the other researchers. The researchers have used close-ended questions in their questionnaire which is based on a Likert scale.
3.4 Likert scale:
The most regularly utilized scaling procedure is the Likert scale, which has been named after its innovator, Rensis Likert. Unique Likert scales contained five reaction alternatives (as just outlined), however, ensuing exploration has likewise utilized two-, three-, four-, six-, and sevenreaction alternatives effectively.
Four point Likert scale can be used. Actually, most of the time, respondents of the study like to select undecided or neutral option to avoid form confrontation or for time saving purposes. On the other hand you are required responses.
Original Likert scales contained five response options (adjust illustrated), but subsequent research has also used two, three, four, six, and seven response options successfully. Some researchers prefer using an even number of response options because of the concern that certain respondents might use the middle category ('neither agree nor disagree, ''not sure, 'or' neutral') to avoid making are al choice, that is, to take the easy way out. Although according to research, this may be true of roughly 20% of the respondents, it appears that the inclusion or exclusion of a middle category does not affect the relative proportions of those actually expressing opinions and thus does not modify the results significantly (Nunnally, 1978; Robson, 1993).
3.5 Pilot study
Conducting a pilot study we were going to fill the 20 questionnaires from our sample to check out the reliability of our questions. Whether the questions are comprehensible for the students or not. After getting the pilot result, we are able to take this questionnaire for our research because we have found the appropriate result from the pilot study. The result shows the .800 reliability of the whole questionnaire and all the questions have more than .75 reliability, this shows the accurate result of our pilot study.
3.6 Procedure for Data Collection
Data was collected through a survey conveniently from the students of University of the Punjab, Lahore.
3.7 Procedure of Data analysis
Data will be analyzed by coding it in numerical form in software SPSS. After this tests will be applied to get the results of our research.
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of data. The Topic of the thesis is “Factors accelerating code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore”. The instrument used to collect data was close-ended Questionnaires. Software SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) was used to analyze data in the form of Frequencies, Percentages and paired sample t-test.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Above table (4.1) shows the general factors which accelerate code switching/mixing among bilingual students. First statement shows that (M=3.35) 91% students agree that code switching/mixing is habitual to them while the other 9% students disagree with it. Second statement shows that (M=2.80) 70% students agree that code switching/mixing happens to them consciously while the other 30% students disagree with it. Third statement shows that (M=3.34) 87% students agree that code switching/mixing is natural to them while the other 13% students disagree with it. Fourth statement shows that (M=2.90) 65% students agree that code switching/mixing happens to them unconsciously while the other 35% students disagree with it. It means that the majority of the students have shown their agreement with these factors.
Language and Linguistic Factors: (You move between languages because)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Above table (4.2) shows the language and linguistic factors which accelerate code switching/mixing among bilingual students. First statement shows that (M=3.38) 93% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to clarify message while the other 07% students disagree with it. Second statement shows that (M=3.08) 82% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to add emphasis while the other 18% students disagree with it. Third statement shows that (M=3.16) 87% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to make a point while the other 13% students disagree with it. Fourth statement shows that (M=3.25) 88% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to ease communication while the other 12% students disagree with it. Fifth Statement shows that (M=3.19) 86% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to convey precise meaning while the other 14% students disagree with it. Sixth statement shows that (M=2.84) 71% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they have to repeat the idea while the other 29% students disagree with it. Seventh statement shows that (M=3.26) 87% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to clarify a message while the other 13% students with it. Eighth statement shows that (M=2.98) 74% students do code switching/mixing when they have to quote someone’s exact words while the other 26% students disagree with it. Ninth statement shows that (M=2.87) 72% students do code switching/mixing when they have short of vocabulary while the other 28% students disagree with it. Tenth statement shows that (M=3.02) 77% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when it is the demand of the topic of conversation while the other 23% students disagree with it. Eleventh statement shows that (M=3.18) 87% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to express emotions e.g. love, sorrow etc. while the other 13% students disagree with it. Twelfth statement shows that (M=3.36) 93% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to communicate effectively while the other 07% students disagree with it. It means that the majority of the students have shown their agreement with these factors.
Social and Situational Factors: (You move between languages because)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Above table (4.3) shows the social and situational factors which accelerate code switching/mixing among bilingual students. First statement shows that (M=2.91) 74% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they have to appeal to the literate while the other 26% students disagree with it. Second statement shows that (M=2.84) 66% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they wish to capture attention while the other 34% students disagree with it. Third statement shows that (M=2.92) 74% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to show group identity while the other 26% students disagree with it. Fourth statement shows that (M=3.10) 80% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to establish goodwill and support while the other 20% students disagree with it. Fifth Statement shows that (M=3.02) 78% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they want to close or minimize status gap while the other 22% students disagree with it. Sixth statement shows that (M=3.32) 91% students agree that they do code switching/mixing because some concepts are easier to express in one of the languages while the other 09% students disagree with it. Seventh statement shows that (M=2.69) 54% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they have to appeal to the illiterate while the other 46% students disagree with it. Eighth statement shows that (M=2.74) 64% students do code switching/mixing when they wish to exclude another person from the dialogue (Privacy) while the other 36% students disagree with it. Ninth statement shows that (M=2.83) 70% students do code switching/mixing when they wish to express group solidarity while the other 30% students disagree with it. Tenth statement shows that (M=3.24) 89% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they have to deal with the audience while the other 11% students disagree with it. Eleventh statement shows that (M=3.00) 76% students agree that they do code switching/mixing when they wish to negotiate with greater authority while the other 24% students disagree with it. Twelfth statement shows that (M=3.17) 88% students agree that they do code switching/mixing because some activities have only been experienced in one of the languages while the other 12% students disagree with it. It means that the majority of the students have shown their agreement with these factors.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Above table (4.4) shows the levels of code switching/mixing due to language and linguistic factors. According to the results 13% students do low level of code switching/mixing because they are the students who rarely face problems in the language and linguistic elements in conveying their message and in their conversations. Hence, they switch/mix their codes at the lowest level. We can say very rarely because they have command in their languages.
The average language and linguistic code switching/mixing is done by 72% bilingual students who switch/mix their codes according to the demand. They have average problems in language and linguistic elements. Therefore, they switch/mix their codes at average level.
Other 15% students are those who switched/mixed their codes at the highest level. These students have many problems in their language and linguistic elements. They have problems in vocabulary, conveying the message, less command in second language or in both languages. Hence, these students are proficient bilinguals as compared to their languages. Therefore, they switch/mix their codes most of the time.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Above table (4.5) shows the levels of code switching/mixing due to social and situational factors. According to the results 15% students do low level of code switching/mixing due to social and situational factors. These students rarely face any social and situational problems which force them to switch/mix. Therefore, they switch/mix their codes at lowest level.
71% students do average level of code switching/mixing because they face the social and situational problems averagely depend upon the circumstances. They only switch/mix their codes when they need to do it.
Other 14% students do high level of code switching/mixing because they have many social and situational problems. Therefore, we can say these students do code switching/mixing most of the times.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Above table (4.6) shows that t-value (4.225) is significant (p = .000) at 0.05 level of significant. Therefore, it is decided that there is significance difference between language, linguistic and social, situational factors in accelerating code switching/mixing among bilingual students. Hence, we may say that the students have to switch/mix more due to language and linguistic factors as compared to social and situational factors.
First of all I will present all the overall factors with their order of accelerating code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Categories of Factors
1: Habitual. 2: Natural. 3: Consciously. 4: Unconsciously.
Language and Linguistic Factors
Major: 1: Clarifying message. 2: Communicate effectively. 3: Ease communication. 4: Clarifying misunderstanding. 5: Express emotions. 6: Make a point. Minor: 1: Convey precise meaning. 2: Add emphasis. 3: Topic of conversation. 4: Quotation. 5: Short vocabulary. 6: Repetition.
Social and Situational Factors
Major: 1: Concepts (Religious, Social and Cultural etc.). 2: Audience. 3: Activities (Religious, Social and Cultural etc.). 4: Goodwill and support. 5: Status gap. 6: Negotiate with authority.
Minor: 1: Group identity. 2: Appeal to literate. 3: Group solidarity. 4: Capture attention. 5: Privacy. 6: Appeal to illiterate.
The above factors are categorized into major and minor category on the basis of their role in accelerating code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore. The language/linguistic and social/situational factors which are agreed by majority of the students are categorized as major and the rest are in the category of minor. The results also shows that most people switch/mix because of language and linguistic factors as compared to social and situational factors.
Chapter 5 Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations
The results of this research have shown the major factors that accelerate code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore.
- The major language and linguistic factors are: clarifying message, communicate effectively, ease communication, clarifying misunderstanding, express emotions (Love, Sorrow etc.) and make a point.
- The major social and situational factors are: some concepts (Religious, Social and Cultural etc.) are easier to understand in one of the languages, to deal with the audience, some activities (Religious, Social and Cultural etc.) have only been experienced in one of the languages, to establish goodwill and support, to close or minimize status gap and to negotiate with authority.
Comparing the results of this research with the previous researches I would like to begin with Gumperz (1982) point of view, he distinguishes six elements of code, switching/mixing which are: Quotation, Addressee particular, Repetition, Interjection, Message capability and Personification. But the factors of this research mentioned at the start are very much different than the research of Gumperz. Only two factors of Gumperz research somehow (addressee particular and message capability) resembles with this research while the rest of the factors are different. The reason might be the development of technology with the passage of time in the world because as the world progressed the people are now familiar with most of the languages in the world and they can communicate now in more than one language. Religious, social, cultural, geographical etc. factors also play their part in making a difference because all these things are totally different in Gumperz research and in this research. Therefore, the results of Gumperz and this research differ.
Secondly, the ten accompanying capacities have been portrayed in the expert writing by Malik (1994). He depicts that code switching/mixing occurs when there is an absence of a facility, lack of registers, State of mind of the speaker, to underscore a point, frequent experience, semantic noteworthiness, to show character with a gathering, to address an alternate group of audience, for pragmatic reasons, to draw in consideration. But the factors of this research mentioned at the start are very much different than the research of Malik. Only three factors (to underscore a point, frequent experience and to address an alternate group of audience) from research of Malik somehow resembles with this research while the rest of factors are different. The research of Malik is related to linguistic and social factors of code switching/mixing. The reason of difference might be the individual differences, geographical, social and cultural differences also there and especially the gap of time duration between both the researches also plays its part.
Thirdly, I would like to compare with the research of Canarajah (1995), he describes eight factors of code switching/mixing which are: Opening the class, Requesting help, Managing discipline, Teachers’ encouragements and compliments, Reviewing a lesson, Defining a word, Explaining a concept and Negotiating cultural relevance. But the factors of this research mentioned at the start are very much different than the research of Canarajah. Only three factors (Defining a word, Explaining a concept and Negotiating cultural relevance) from research of Canarajah resembles with this research while the rest of factors are different. Canarajah researched on students of a school in India, speaking Tamil, Hindi and English. The reason of difference might be the individual differences, geographical, social and cultural differences also there and especially the gap of time duration between both the researches also plays its part.
Fourthly, Karen Kow (2003) recorded in her article a couple of conceivable conditions for code exchanging. A conditions' percentage given area, is the, Lack of a single word in either dialect, Some exercises have just been knowledgeable about one of the dialects, Any ideas are less demanding to express in one of the dialects, A misconception must be illuminated, One wishes to make a sure corresponding impact, One keeps on talking the dialect most recently utilized due to the trigger impact, One needs to make a point, One wishes to express gathering solidarity, One wishes to bar someone else from the dialog. These conditions expressed by the Kow which undertakes code switching/mixing with students. But the factors of this research mentioned at the start are very much different than the research of Kow. Only three factors (Some exercises have just been knowledgeable about one of the dialects, Any ideas are less demanding to express in one of the dialects and An misconception must be illuminated) from research of Kow somehow resembles with this research the rest of the factors are different. The reason might be the development of technology with the passage of time in the world because as the world progressed the people are now familiar with most of the languages in the world and they can communicate now in more than one language. Religious, social, cultural, geographical etc. factors also play their part in making a difference because all these things are totally different in Kow research and in this research. Therefore, the results of Kow and this research differ.
At last, comparing with the research of Sert (2006), he discovers validness in the discussion, Equivalence, Floor holding, Reiteration and Conflict control are the major factors in students for switching/mixing codes. But the factors of this research mentioned at the start are very much different than the research of Sert. Only one factor somehow (validness in the discussion) resembles with the factor of this research (clarifying message) while the rest of the factors are different. There might be several reasons for this difference as the students observed by Sert are totally different from the students of this research. Religious, social, cultural and geographical etc. differences also exist and the backgrounds of both researches are different. There is a lot of development too in the communication aspects in the world that might play their role as well.
To summarize, the discussion I just want to say that factors of this research somehow resembles with the factors identified by different researchers. The differences occurred due to Religious, Social, Cultural and geographical etc. differences. The individuals’ differences also play a big role in these differences.
In conclusion, this study depicts that every particular country has its own constitution and laws regarding its state language and other language issues of the country. There are always some social, economic and political factors that lead a society to switch/mix from using one language to using another. However, if the student of a minority group is conscious enough of the importance of their language and believes that their language is an imperative symbol of their group’s identity, it is likely to resist the language switch/mix.
This study shows that there are three categories (general, social and linguistic) which define the factors involved in code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level in Lahore. The general factors are habitual, natural, it happens to you consciously and unconsciously. But the most important factors are the social/situational and language/linguistic factors which are highly impacted on the code switching/mixing. The high rated language factors are those when the bilingual students switch/mix the code when they want to clarify the message, to communicate effectively, to clarify misunderstandings and to ease the communication, to express emotions and to make a point. On the other hand, the high rated social factors are, to deal with the audience, to establish goodwill and support, to express experience some activities which only expressed in a specific language, to convey the concept in one of the languages, to close or minimize the status gap and to negotiate with greater authority.
These factors may vary from context to context as every Religion society, culture, and Languages has its own taste. Therefore, the result will definitely vary in different settings because every individual is a different individual so it’s really difficult to granulize a result in social sciences.
We just want to recommend that:
- Research on Language based switching/mixing can be conducted.
- To investigate in depth, qualitative or mix-method approach can be used.
- Switching/mixing can be investigated on the basis of mother tongue.
- More factors of code switching/mixing can be investigated in different regions. Code switching/mixing in ELT class rooms can also be investigated.
Amuda, A. A. (1994). Yoruba/English Conversational Code-Switching as a Conversational Strategy. African Languages and cultures, 7 (2), 121-131. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1771808
Auer, P. (Ed.) (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London: Rutledge.
Ayeomoni, M. (2006). Code-switching and code-mixing: Style of language use in childhood in Yoruba speech community. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15 (1), 90-99. Canagarajah, A.S. (1995). Functions of Codeswitching in ESL Classrooms: Socialising
Bilingualism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(3), 173-175.
Chan, B. (2003). Conversational code switching and relevance theory. International Pragmatic Association Journal, 12 (3), 34-8.
Faltis, C. (1984). A Commentary on Krashen's Input Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 352-357. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/3586705?origin=JSTOR-pdf
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Conversational Codeswitching. In Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Haugen, E. (1987). Blessings of Babel: bilingualism and language planning: problem and pleasures (2nd ed.). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual Language Mixing: Why Do Bilinguals Code-Switch? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10 (5), 164-168. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182730
Hudson, R. (1996). Sociolingistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karen, K. Y. C. (2003). Codeswitching for a Purpose: Focus on Preschool Malaysian Children. Multilingua, 22,.59-77.
Ioup, G. (1984). Two Readers Comment on Stephen Krashen's Input Hypothesis: Testing the Relationship of Formal Instruction to the Input Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 345-350. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/3586705?origin=JSTOR-pdf
Malik, L. (1994). Sociolinguistics: A Study of Codeswitching. New Delhi: Anmol.
Nilep, C. (2006). “Code Switching” in Sociocultural Linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 19, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ling/CRIL/Volume19_Issue1/paper_NILEP.pdf
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paolillo, J. C. (2011). “Conversational” codeswitching on Usenet and Internet Relay Chat. Language@Internet, 8, 3, 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2011/Paolillo
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 Oral Proficiency through Synchronous CMC: Output, Working Memory, and Interlanguage Development. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 7-32. Retrieved from http:// www.calico.org/html/article_327.pdf
Reyes, I. (2004). Functions of code-switching in school children’s conversations. Bilingual Research Journal, 28 (1), 77-96.
Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sert, O. 2006. The factors of code switching in ELT classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved March 4, 2008 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert- CodeSwitching.html
Wald, B. (1974). Bilingualism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 301-321. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/2949293
Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Oxford: WILEY- BLACKWELL, A John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Researchers, Muhammad Sheroz and Anam are the students of Master of
English Language Teaching & Linguistics (Morning) at University of the Punjab. We are doing our thesis on “Factors accelerating code switching/mixing among bilingual students at university level.” Your information is highly valuable for us and will be kept confidential. Thank you!
Gender Department Program
Please rate each item given below by using following scale:
1=Strongly Disagree (SD) 2=Disagree (D) 3=Agree (A) 4=Strongly Agree (SA)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
- Quote paper
- Sheroz Ramzan (Author)Anam Shafique (Author), 2015, Factors accelerating Code Switching-Mixing among Bilingual Students, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/309999