Sociolinguistics Nína Rúna Kvaran
Professor Matthew Whelpton Kt.140478-4079
Question 3
Essay
To the average person such as myself, the term language does not seem to be a very complex one. It somehow feels invariably correct to claim that a language is a tool used by human beings exclusively to communicate with each other and that each nation or country has its own language. Obviously, this is a gross underestimate of the term based on misconception and ignorance that are partly understandable when one thinks of what an automatic action the language use is to a normal person that does not have a handicap in that area. Hudson (1996, p.21) calls language a set of “linguistic items” which constitute of things such as words, sounds and various grammatical structures. When one dives into the seemingly endless terminology of language it quickly becomes evident that language is an extremely complicated phenomena with a huge variety of scientific terms attached to it.
In this essay I will try to examine a mere fraction of terminology associated with language, namely the sociolinguistic terms of bilingualism, multilingualism, diglossia and polyglossia in relation to what these terms are, why they exist and how they function. There will also be some investigation into code choice and code switching. To further understand and learn about these interesting issues an anecdote description of a multilingual domestic situation will be included as well.
As said before, it seems to be an almost automatic assumption to believe that each nation or country has its own language but of course in many cases this could not be further away from the truth. Before looking at this further it is necessary to look at the terms nation and country. A country is usually some kind of geographical area that has borders of some sort separating it from other countries. But as most people know, many different nations, nationalities and ethnic groups can reside in one country either in harmony or at civil war. This of course means that the notion of each country having one language in common is wrong. As Fasold puts it “ A large number of countries are so linguistically diverse that it is not uncommon for even children to be bilingual or multilingual” (Fasold, p.1).
The next natural assumption is to conclude that each nation then must have its own language in common. Unfortunately, that is not so clear cut either since the word “nation” is more complicated to define than one might think. According to Fasold, a nation can consist of a variety of ethnic groups (Fasold, p.2) and he emphasizes the difficulties in distinguishing between ethnic groups and nationalities, calling them “points on a continuum rather than discrete distinction” and claiming that sometimes it is vital to know where a “given groups relative position on this continuum is” (Fasold, p.2). Since each nation might consist of a variety of ethnic groups and nationalities, the United States for example, surely it is save to say that a nation does not necessarily have to be unified in one language. For those who think English is the language of the United States it is maybe a good thing to remember that a huge variety of Spanish-speaking people live in the USA as do populations that speak European, Asian, African and Native American languages and yet all these people are a part of the same North-American nation.
Considering the aforementioned information it is relatively save to say that some nations are multilingual or bilingual, terms that are very closely related. Multilingualism is defined by Whelpton as “an individual’s or a population of individuals’ knowledge of many languages” (Whelpton, p.20) and this means that not only can nations be multilingual but also individuals. Another term that I want to address here is that of bilingualism that Whelpton defines as “an individual’s or a population of individuals’ knowledge of two languages” (Whelpton, p.20). Starting with the idea of the population of individual’s being multilingual or bilingual it is interesting to wonder just why that is. According to Fasold there are usually “historical patterns that lead to the existence” (Fasold, p.9) of multilingualism. Firstly he mentions migration where either “a large group expands its territory by moving into contiguous areas” (Fasold, p.9) and takes control over the existing groups or migration where a fraction of an ethnic group move into another group’s territory and therefore add to the multilingualism there. Secondly he mentions imperialism, which he says, is similar to large group migration except in an imperialistic situation the migration group consists of fewer people that take over control. Thirdly, Fasold mentions the role of federation as a contributing factor in multilingual situations and by federation he is referring to a “union of diverse ethnic groups or nationalities under the political control of one state” (Fasold, p.11). He does explain that voluntary federations are rare but Switzerland is one good example of such a multilingual situation having German, French, Italian and even Romansch as languages that all carry official status. The fourth and last historical pattern Fasold mentions is what he calls “border areas” (Fasold, p.12) but might just as well be called border area confusion. By this he means that every state has to have relatively clearly outlined borders for obvious practical reasons but that “sociocultural groups do not always select their area of residence for the convenience of political boundary drawing” (Fasold, p.12) and therefore sometimes near border areas there are groups of people that are citizens in one country but belong to a sociocultural group in the other country, thereby making the situation somewhat complicated.
After having thus established in one’s mind a fairly understandable idea of what multilingualism and bilingualism are, it is interesting to ponder slightly on how they function. Are monolingual nations perhaps better off than the multilingual ones or vice versa? It is very easy to assume that things should be simpler in a monolingual society and indeed Fasold does mention some problems that follow a multilingual situation. Firstly and perhaps most obviously, having two or more languages in use within the same country or state can cause minor or even serious communication problems within that state. Secondly, the sense of nationality is for example very often strongly entwined with the notion of having one unified language in common such as is the case in Iceland, where the Icelandic language is completely embedded in the whole experience of being an Icelander. People tend to feel unified and more connected to other that speak the same language than to those that speak another language and this is of course very understandable. So the notion of nationalism might suffer for multilingualism. But despite that these facts might point to multilingual states being disadvantaged compared to the monolingual ones, surely a multilingual situation cannot be all evil since it creates a base for an even richer cultural tradition and heritage within a state than perhaps is the case in a monolingual one and in cases where individuals are multilingual or bilingual as a result of the multilingual situation where they come from, chances are they have an advantage within the international community over those who come from a strictly monolingual society.
Another aspect of multilingualism which happens to be of personal interest to me, is that of not a multilingual state or society but of the multilingual family. As said before I would like to include a very brief anecdote description of a multilingual domestic situation so as to further enhance my own understanding of these terms that are being dealt with here.
The situation is thus described: the family unit includes two individuals living together as a couple. Both individuals are bilingual. One individual is a native Spanish speaker that speaks fluent English as well. The second individual is a native Icelandic speaker that also speaks English fluently. It is easy to assume that in such circumstances the most obvious choice of communication would be English but as it turns out, that is not entirely the case. I will come back to this situation when I discuss codes and code switching later on.
Now I want to look at the terms diglossia and polyglossia and examine those a little further. The word diglossia was defined by Charles Ferguson in 1959 after he had made the observation that speakers in many instances use more than one variety of the same language, all according to what social circumstances they might be in at each time. He also noted that sometimes two varieties of the same language coexist in a community and each one has its own distinct role. This is what he called a diglossic situation. This kind of situation is usually such that one of the two varieties is what could be called a Low variety and the other a High variety that is often superposed. A Low variety of language is used in intimate situations, casual entertainment and everything that could be considered common speech. A high variety of a language is used in more formal speech and letters, news broadcasts, sermon, higher education, literature etc. (Whelpton, p.21). Wardhaugh makes a diglossic example out of the case of how English and Norman French coexisted for three centuries after the Norman Conquest in 1066, English being the Low variety and Norman French being the high (Wardhaugh, p.89). Perhaps, since these are not the same languages, it would be better to take a more modern example of a diglossic situation as in Switzerland where Swiss German has Schweizerdeutsch as a Low variety and Hochdeutsch as a High variety. Icelanders tend to believe that there is only one “kind” of Icelandic being used and that everybody speaks the same in Iceland but of course that is not entirely true. On a shear anecdotal note it amusing to mention in this instance a personal experience of mine. I was interviewed on the Icelandic government radio channel a little over a year ago and it was as extensive interview about very personal things. I did not prepare myself in any way for this interview and everything that I said in the live broadcast came very naturally to me and with out any real effort or deliberate thinking of enhancing my language. The next day I listened to a recording of the interview and was shocked to discover that I had automatically used another variation of Icelandic than in my normal everyday speech and I sounded much more like a character from literature speaking than a “real” person. So although there is not a diglossic situation in Iceland with a superposed and a lower variety, there still is “variation within the same language” (Fasold, p.180).
Yet another situation is a so-called polyglossic situation as is to be found in the for example the English-educated communities of Singapore and Malaysia (Whelpton, p.28). This situation is different from a diglossic one in the fact that there is more than one language being used and difficult to “describe the situation coherently in terms of binarity” (Whelpton, p.28). In his reader, Whelpton takes note of how an individual in a Malaysian community is likely to have a huge linguistic repertoire of Malaysian, English and Chinese varieties, all which are to be used within the appropriate social circumstances.
But after going over the aforementioned terminology, it is perhaps only appropriate to examine how people use the different codes they have in their repertoire and why they use them in the way they do. But before going any further, it is wise to try to define the term code first. According to Whelpton a code is “a linguistic system of communication” (Whelpton, p.30) although he does mention that this choice of terms is not entirely a true description since it “implies that the system is a closed and clearly defines system of relationships” (Whelpton, p.30). In other words, a code can refer to a particular language or a variety of a language. In most situations nowadays, there is more than one code available for communicating and therefore it is important how people choose between codes. Sometimes the case is just that, that people choose to switch from one code/language to another and this is generally referred to as code switching, that is to say, when only one code is used at a time. This could refer to a situation similar to the one of Icelandic English students in the university that generally speak only Icelandic with each other and then switch completely over into English in the classroom. Wardhaugh even divides code switching into two categories: situational and metaphorical code switching. He claims that situational code switching occurs when the languages being used by the same speakers change according to the situation they are in, but not necessarily according to the topic. A metaphorical code switching is when a change of topic “requires a change in the language used” (Wardhaugh, p.103).
But sometimes only fractions of one code/language are being used while a speaker is basically using another code/language and this is called code mixing, that is to say, when two (or perhaps more) codes are being used at the same time. Fasold even takes a third example of a so-called “variation within the same language” which could imply for example when people have a Low or High variety of the same language available to them and they have to evaluate themselves when to use each variety.
In conclusion to my very brief exploration into all the terms that I have mentioned, I now want to return to the aforementioned anecdote description and reflect a little bit on all of these terms through the experience of the couple involved so as to enhance my own understanding of the terms and how code switching and mixing can be used.
As said before, both individuals are bilingual in their own native languages and then English. This combination makes for a multilingual home where as much as three languages are being used at the same time. As time has gone by, both individuals have acquired some limited vocabulary in the other’s native language and that development has had a great influence on the possibilities they have in code choosing. In the beginning of the relationship they only spoke to each other in English and that is of course understandable enough. But with increased vocabulary knowledge in each other’s native languages, certain words derived from both Icelandic and Spanish started to seep into the day-to-day conversations of the couple. Interestingly enough, this seems to have happened quite involuntarily and usually follows the same set of rules. It is interesting to wonder why this seemingly unnecessary code manipulation happens since both individuals have a firm grasp of a communal language, that being English. Why did they change their communication tactics from being exclusively monolingual to becoming a multilingual mix of English, Icelandic and Spanish when it seem so obvious that a monolingual situation would be a simpler, more effective way of communicating? My personal, amateur theory is that the answer maybe lies in human nature or perhaps it is a part of what Chomsky’s “bioprogram”.
I do believe that in most cases, one’s native language is a part of one’s identity and as has been mentioned before, speaking the same language can under certain circumstances be a unifying force. In a bilingual relationship where two individuals have different native languages and not enough knowledge of one another’s language to switch over to the other’s code/language, obviously a third communal language serves a very practical purpose in their relations. But the problem is that this third language is not the native language of either one and in some cases, people have a need to express themselves in their own language on a level of intimacy and a third, “neutral” language can at times sound and feel somehow too formal, artificial and impersonal to use on a constant intimate level. What this particular couple has done is to find a kind of compromise (unwillingly though) until and if they ever manage to acquire enough skills to code switch totally to each other’s languages. Here is a brief list explaining some of the details of the seemingly strange code mixing that occurs:
Base language: English
Supplement languages: Icelandic and Spanish
Situation: Normal everyday speech: A combination of all three languages with basic English grammar and sentence structure but isolated words or phrases of Icelandic and Spanish mixed into it. Both individuals seem to equally use these words and phrases of both supplement languages, perhaps having automatically imitated each other with time. With very simple sentences the English is often skipped and a code mix of Icelandic and Spanish used.
Example sentences:
“I want to go út á land.”
“Turn on the sjónvarp por favor.”
“I’m eating my comida!”
“Takk fyrir matinn mi amor.”
“Mi cabeza is hurting.”
Situation: Use of terms of endearments: strangely enough, terms of endearments seem to come almost solely from the Spanish vocabulary and are used evenly by both individuals. Perhaps the reason for this because of the native Icelandic speaker’s lack of introducing Icelandic terms of endearments into the communal vocabulary or maybe the Spanish words of this nature seem more natural or un-awkward to use than the Icelandic ones. This remains a mystery unsolved and only a very few words and phrases of endearment are used from the English and Icelandic vocabulary.
Example sentences:
“Komdu hingað mi amor.”
“Te amo.”
“Tu eres bonita/bonito!”
“Ég elska þig” (one of the few Icelandic uses).
Situation: A serious discussion or sophisticated argument: When engaging in a serious discussion where no details can afford to be misunderstood, English is always the code of choice. Interestingly, when engaged in a calm and sophisticated quarrel, English also tents to be used without any Spanish or Icelandic input. It is understandable that when certain facts must be brought to the light without the risk of misunderstanding occurring, English is the code of choice since that is the language both individuals have the best possibility of understanding each other with. But whether this is solely the reason for English being the code choice in quarrels, there is some doubt. It is altogether likely that the feeling of distance and certain formality that both individuals associate with the English language and is often associated with conflicts and defensive modes is a factor in this choice.
Example sentences: Not necessary. Just normal English speech.
Situation: A full blown, dramatic fight: in the rare occurrence of a fully fledged screaming match where the adrenalin is flowing and all hopes of a sensible discussion are flown out the window, both individuals resort to their own native vocabulary of ravings and swear words, totally disregarding code switching or mixing. This is not a surprise since when most people are very upset and reduced to childish fighting, they generally are past caring about what the other person is saying and too busy venting their own rage, so they might as well express themselves in their own language since the other person probably is not listening to them anyway.
Example sentences: Edited out for the sake of common decency.
Bibliography
Whelpton, Matthew. Sociolinguistics 05.15.35. Háskóli Íslands. 2003, 20-34.
Fasold, Ralph. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ch.1-2.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. (1998). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Third Edition.
Oxford: Blackwell. Ch.4.
R.A. Hudson. Sociolinguistics. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. 1996,
p.21.
Professor Matthew Whelpton Kt.140478-4079
Question 3
Essay
To the average person such as myself, the term language does not seem to be a very complex one. It somehow feels invariably correct to claim that a language is a tool used by human beings exclusively to communicate with each other and that each nation or country has its own language. Obviously, this is a gross underestimate of the term based on misconception and ignorance that are partly understandable when one thinks of what an automatic action the language use is to a normal person that does not have a handicap in that area. Hudson (1996, p.21) calls language a set of “linguistic items” which constitute of things such as words, sounds and various grammatical structures. When one dives into the seemingly endless terminology of language it quickly becomes evident that language is an extremely complicated phenomena with a huge variety of scientific terms attached to it.
In this essay I will try to examine a mere fraction of terminology associated with language, namely the sociolinguistic terms of bilingualism, multilingualism, diglossia and polyglossia in relation to what these terms are, why they exist and how they function. There will also be some investigation into code choice and code switching. To further understand and learn about these interesting issues an anecdote description of a multilingual domestic situation will be included as well.
As said before, it seems to be an almost automatic assumption to believe that each nation or country has its own language but of course in many cases this could not be further away from the truth. Before looking at this further it is necessary to look at the terms nation and country. A country is usually some kind of geographical area that has borders of some sort separating it from other countries. But as most people know, many different nations, nationalities and ethnic groups can reside in one country either in harmony or at civil war. This of course means that the notion of each country having one language in common is wrong. As Fasold puts it “ A large number of countries are so linguistically diverse that it is not uncommon for even children to be bilingual or multilingual” (Fasold, p.1).
The next natural assumption is to conclude that each nation then must have its own language in common. Unfortunately, that is not so clear cut either since the word “nation” is more complicated to define than one might think. According to Fasold, a nation can consist of a variety of ethnic groups (Fasold, p.2) and he emphasizes the difficulties in distinguishing between ethnic groups and nationalities, calling them “points on a continuum rather than discrete distinction” and claiming that sometimes it is vital to know where a “given groups relative position on this continuum is” (Fasold, p.2). Since each nation might consist of a variety of ethnic groups and nationalities, the United States for example, surely it is save to say that a nation does not necessarily have to be unified in one language. For those who think English is the language of the United States it is maybe a good thing to remember that a huge variety of Spanish-speaking people live in the USA as do populations that speak European, Asian, African and Native American languages and yet all these people are a part of the same North-American nation.
Considering the aforementioned information it is relatively save to say that some nations are multilingual or bilingual, terms that are very closely related. Multilingualism is defined by Whelpton as “an individual’s or a population of individuals’ knowledge of many languages” (Whelpton, p.20) and this means that not only can nations be multilingual but also individuals. Another term that I want to address here is that of bilingualism that Whelpton defines as “an individual’s or a population of individuals’ knowledge of two languages” (Whelpton, p.20). Starting with the idea of the population of individual’s being multilingual or bilingual it is interesting to wonder just why that is. According to Fasold there are usually “historical patterns that lead to the existence” (Fasold, p.9) of multilingualism. Firstly he mentions migration where either “a large group expands its territory by moving into contiguous areas” (Fasold, p.9) and takes control over the existing groups or migration where a fraction of an ethnic group move into another group’s territory and therefore add to the multilingualism there. Secondly he mentions imperialism, which he says, is similar to large group migration except in an imperialistic situation the migration group consists of fewer people that take over control. Thirdly, Fasold mentions the role of federation as a contributing factor in multilingual situations and by federation he is referring to a “union of diverse ethnic groups or nationalities under the political control of one state” (Fasold, p.11). He does explain that voluntary federations are rare but Switzerland is one good example of such a multilingual situation having German, French, Italian and even Romansch as languages that all carry official status. The fourth and last historical pattern Fasold mentions is what he calls “border areas” (Fasold, p.12) but might just as well be called border area confusion. By this he means that every state has to have relatively clearly outlined borders for obvious practical reasons but that “sociocultural groups do not always select their area of residence for the convenience of political boundary drawing” (Fasold, p.12) and therefore sometimes near border areas there are groups of people that are citizens in one country but belong to a sociocultural group in the other country, thereby making the situation somewhat complicated.
After having thus established in one’s mind a fairly understandable idea of what multilingualism and bilingualism are, it is interesting to ponder slightly on how they function. Are monolingual nations perhaps better off than the multilingual ones or vice versa? It is very easy to assume that things should be simpler in a monolingual society and indeed Fasold does mention some problems that follow a multilingual situation. Firstly and perhaps most obviously, having two or more languages in use within the same country or state can cause minor or even serious communication problems within that state. Secondly, the sense of nationality is for example very often strongly entwined with the notion of having one unified language in common such as is the case in Iceland, where the Icelandic language is completely embedded in the whole experience of being an Icelander. People tend to feel unified and more connected to other that speak the same language than to those that speak another language and this is of course very understandable. So the notion of nationalism might suffer for multilingualism. But despite that these facts might point to multilingual states being disadvantaged compared to the monolingual ones, surely a multilingual situation cannot be all evil since it creates a base for an even richer cultural tradition and heritage within a state than perhaps is the case in a monolingual one and in cases where individuals are multilingual or bilingual as a result of the multilingual situation where they come from, chances are they have an advantage within the international community over those who come from a strictly monolingual society.
Another aspect of multilingualism which happens to be of personal interest to me, is that of not a multilingual state or society but of the multilingual family. As said before I would like to include a very brief anecdote description of a multilingual domestic situation so as to further enhance my own understanding of these terms that are being dealt with here.
The situation is thus described: the family unit includes two individuals living together as a couple. Both individuals are bilingual. One individual is a native Spanish speaker that speaks fluent English as well. The second individual is a native Icelandic speaker that also speaks English fluently. It is easy to assume that in such circumstances the most obvious choice of communication would be English but as it turns out, that is not entirely the case. I will come back to this situation when I discuss codes and code switching later on.
Now I want to look at the terms diglossia and polyglossia and examine those a little further. The word diglossia was defined by Charles Ferguson in 1959 after he had made the observation that speakers in many instances use more than one variety of the same language, all according to what social circumstances they might be in at each time. He also noted that sometimes two varieties of the same language coexist in a community and each one has its own distinct role. This is what he called a diglossic situation. This kind of situation is usually such that one of the two varieties is what could be called a Low variety and the other a High variety that is often superposed. A Low variety of language is used in intimate situations, casual entertainment and everything that could be considered common speech. A high variety of a language is used in more formal speech and letters, news broadcasts, sermon, higher education, literature etc. (Whelpton, p.21). Wardhaugh makes a diglossic example out of the case of how English and Norman French coexisted for three centuries after the Norman Conquest in 1066, English being the Low variety and Norman French being the high (Wardhaugh, p.89). Perhaps, since these are not the same languages, it would be better to take a more modern example of a diglossic situation as in Switzerland where Swiss German has Schweizerdeutsch as a Low variety and Hochdeutsch as a High variety. Icelanders tend to believe that there is only one “kind” of Icelandic being used and that everybody speaks the same in Iceland but of course that is not entirely true. On a shear anecdotal note it amusing to mention in this instance a personal experience of mine. I was interviewed on the Icelandic government radio channel a little over a year ago and it was as extensive interview about very personal things. I did not prepare myself in any way for this interview and everything that I said in the live broadcast came very naturally to me and with out any real effort or deliberate thinking of enhancing my language. The next day I listened to a recording of the interview and was shocked to discover that I had automatically used another variation of Icelandic than in my normal everyday speech and I sounded much more like a character from literature speaking than a “real” person. So although there is not a diglossic situation in Iceland with a superposed and a lower variety, there still is “variation within the same language” (Fasold, p.180).
Yet another situation is a so-called polyglossic situation as is to be found in the for example the English-educated communities of Singapore and Malaysia (Whelpton, p.28). This situation is different from a diglossic one in the fact that there is more than one language being used and difficult to “describe the situation coherently in terms of binarity” (Whelpton, p.28). In his reader, Whelpton takes note of how an individual in a Malaysian community is likely to have a huge linguistic repertoire of Malaysian, English and Chinese varieties, all which are to be used within the appropriate social circumstances.
But after going over the aforementioned terminology, it is perhaps only appropriate to examine how people use the different codes they have in their repertoire and why they use them in the way they do. But before going any further, it is wise to try to define the term code first. According to Whelpton a code is “a linguistic system of communication” (Whelpton, p.30) although he does mention that this choice of terms is not entirely a true description since it “implies that the system is a closed and clearly defines system of relationships” (Whelpton, p.30). In other words, a code can refer to a particular language or a variety of a language. In most situations nowadays, there is more than one code available for communicating and therefore it is important how people choose between codes. Sometimes the case is just that, that people choose to switch from one code/language to another and this is generally referred to as code switching, that is to say, when only one code is used at a time. This could refer to a situation similar to the one of Icelandic English students in the university that generally speak only Icelandic with each other and then switch completely over into English in the classroom. Wardhaugh even divides code switching into two categories: situational and metaphorical code switching. He claims that situational code switching occurs when the languages being used by the same speakers change according to the situation they are in, but not necessarily according to the topic. A metaphorical code switching is when a change of topic “requires a change in the language used” (Wardhaugh, p.103).
But sometimes only fractions of one code/language are being used while a speaker is basically using another code/language and this is called code mixing, that is to say, when two (or perhaps more) codes are being used at the same time. Fasold even takes a third example of a so-called “variation within the same language” which could imply for example when people have a Low or High variety of the same language available to them and they have to evaluate themselves when to use each variety.
In conclusion to my very brief exploration into all the terms that I have mentioned, I now want to return to the aforementioned anecdote description and reflect a little bit on all of these terms through the experience of the couple involved so as to enhance my own understanding of the terms and how code switching and mixing can be used.
As said before, both individuals are bilingual in their own native languages and then English. This combination makes for a multilingual home where as much as three languages are being used at the same time. As time has gone by, both individuals have acquired some limited vocabulary in the other’s native language and that development has had a great influence on the possibilities they have in code choosing. In the beginning of the relationship they only spoke to each other in English and that is of course understandable enough. But with increased vocabulary knowledge in each other’s native languages, certain words derived from both Icelandic and Spanish started to seep into the day-to-day conversations of the couple. Interestingly enough, this seems to have happened quite involuntarily and usually follows the same set of rules. It is interesting to wonder why this seemingly unnecessary code manipulation happens since both individuals have a firm grasp of a communal language, that being English. Why did they change their communication tactics from being exclusively monolingual to becoming a multilingual mix of English, Icelandic and Spanish when it seem so obvious that a monolingual situation would be a simpler, more effective way of communicating? My personal, amateur theory is that the answer maybe lies in human nature or perhaps it is a part of what Chomsky’s “bioprogram”.
I do believe that in most cases, one’s native language is a part of one’s identity and as has been mentioned before, speaking the same language can under certain circumstances be a unifying force. In a bilingual relationship where two individuals have different native languages and not enough knowledge of one another’s language to switch over to the other’s code/language, obviously a third communal language serves a very practical purpose in their relations. But the problem is that this third language is not the native language of either one and in some cases, people have a need to express themselves in their own language on a level of intimacy and a third, “neutral” language can at times sound and feel somehow too formal, artificial and impersonal to use on a constant intimate level. What this particular couple has done is to find a kind of compromise (unwillingly though) until and if they ever manage to acquire enough skills to code switch totally to each other’s languages. Here is a brief list explaining some of the details of the seemingly strange code mixing that occurs:
Base language: English
Supplement languages: Icelandic and Spanish
Situation: Normal everyday speech: A combination of all three languages with basic English grammar and sentence structure but isolated words or phrases of Icelandic and Spanish mixed into it. Both individuals seem to equally use these words and phrases of both supplement languages, perhaps having automatically imitated each other with time. With very simple sentences the English is often skipped and a code mix of Icelandic and Spanish used.
Example sentences:
“I want to go út á land.”
“Turn on the sjónvarp por favor.”
“I’m eating my comida!”
“Takk fyrir matinn mi amor.”
“Mi cabeza is hurting.”
Situation: Use of terms of endearments: strangely enough, terms of endearments seem to come almost solely from the Spanish vocabulary and are used evenly by both individuals. Perhaps the reason for this because of the native Icelandic speaker’s lack of introducing Icelandic terms of endearments into the communal vocabulary or maybe the Spanish words of this nature seem more natural or un-awkward to use than the Icelandic ones. This remains a mystery unsolved and only a very few words and phrases of endearment are used from the English and Icelandic vocabulary.
Example sentences:
“Komdu hingað mi amor.”
“Te amo.”
“Tu eres bonita/bonito!”
“Ég elska þig” (one of the few Icelandic uses).
Situation: A serious discussion or sophisticated argument: When engaging in a serious discussion where no details can afford to be misunderstood, English is always the code of choice. Interestingly, when engaged in a calm and sophisticated quarrel, English also tents to be used without any Spanish or Icelandic input. It is understandable that when certain facts must be brought to the light without the risk of misunderstanding occurring, English is the code of choice since that is the language both individuals have the best possibility of understanding each other with. But whether this is solely the reason for English being the code choice in quarrels, there is some doubt. It is altogether likely that the feeling of distance and certain formality that both individuals associate with the English language and is often associated with conflicts and defensive modes is a factor in this choice.
Example sentences: Not necessary. Just normal English speech.
Situation: A full blown, dramatic fight: in the rare occurrence of a fully fledged screaming match where the adrenalin is flowing and all hopes of a sensible discussion are flown out the window, both individuals resort to their own native vocabulary of ravings and swear words, totally disregarding code switching or mixing. This is not a surprise since when most people are very upset and reduced to childish fighting, they generally are past caring about what the other person is saying and too busy venting their own rage, so they might as well express themselves in their own language since the other person probably is not listening to them anyway.
Example sentences: Edited out for the sake of common decency.
Bibliography
Whelpton, Matthew. Sociolinguistics 05.15.35. Háskóli Íslands. 2003, 20-34.
Fasold, Ralph. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ch.1-2.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. (1998). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Third Edition.
Oxford: Blackwell. Ch.4.
R.A. Hudson. Sociolinguistics. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. 1996,
p.21.
posted by Jóna Rúna @ 11:32 f.h.
0 Comments:
Skrifa ummæli
<< Home