Code switching and code mixing

The ability to communicate our thoughts, emotions, and opinions to others is truly a
remarkable skill. But not only does our language communicate who we are, but our use of language
can influence our self-concept and identity. It goes both ways: Cultural influences are reflected in
our language and also influence how we conceptualize who we are and where we come from. (The
social aspect of language is studied by sociolinguistics, a subdivision of linguistics which studies social
factors.)Bilingual communities use certain strategies to make communication more effective and
meaningful. One of these tricks is "code switching," which we can observe mostly in second- or
foreign-language classes. Code switching refers to the use of two languages within a sentence or
discourse. It is a natural conflation that often occurs between multilingual speakers who have two or
more languages in common.

Code switching is when a speaker alternates between two or more languages (or dialects or
varieties of language) in one conversation. Code switching occurs mostly in bilingual communities.
Speakers of more than one language are known for their ability to code switch or mix their language
during their communication. As Aranoff and Miller (2003:523) indicate, many linguists have stressed
the point that switching between languages is a communicative option available to a bilingual
member of a speech community, just as switching between styles or dialects is an option for the
monolingual speaker. Since its inception, the term "code switching" has expanded to encapsulate
any situation in which speakers finds themselves switching from one accepted vocabulary, cadence,
style, or set of rules to another. For example, you'd probably speak to a potential employer
differently than you would address a close friend, so you might switch from casual language to
professional-speak in certain settings. Another example is how many African Americans describe
playing different roles in different settings and with different micro-cultures, and talk about how
they must be very careful to speak with an academic vocabulary and cadence in any interaction with
a police officer.

There are a number of possible reasons for switching from one language to another; three
are described below.

To Fulfill a Need. A speaker who may not be able to express him/herself in one language
might switch to another to compensate for the deficiency. As a result, the speaker may be triggered
into speaking in the other language for a while. This type of code switching tends to occur when the
speaker is upset, tired, or distracted in some manner, or when they are less fluent in one language.

To Express Solidarity. Switching also commonly occurs when an individual wishes to express
solidarity with a particular social group. Rapport is established between the speaker and the listener
when the listener responds with a similar switch.

To Exclude Others. Code switching may also be used to exclude others from a conversation
who do not speak the second language. For example, if two people in an elevator in an English-
speaking place spoke Spanish, then not only would the others on that elevator who do not speak
Spanish would be excluded from the conversation, but also a degree of comfort and intimacy would
be established between the Spanish-speakers due to the fact that not all those present in the
elevator can listen to their conversation.

However, is code switching the same as code mixing? Both involve creating hybrid words or
switching between two or more language within phrases, clauses, or from one complete sentence to
the next. Some use the terms "code mixing" and "code switching" interchangeably, especially those
who study morphology, syntax, and other formal aspects of language, but other areas (like subfields
of linguistics, communication, or education theory) have their own extremely specific definitions for
code mixing.

The main difference can be summarized like this: Code switching is something speakers do
intentionally because they want to express themselves with a personal style or flavor, but code
mixing is something speakers might do unintentionally simply because they don't know the correct
word or phrase.

Accommodation theory

Each one of us is aware that our style of speech changes in the twinkling of an eye, as it
were, depending on a wide range of variables such as the setting, the topic of discourse, the person
we are interacting with, the purpose of the interaction, and so on. For instance, we tend to speak
more slowly when conversing with foreigners, or use grammatically simple language with babies or
children (babytalk). In other words, we accommodateto others by adjusting our communicational
behaviour to the requisite roles that participants are assigned in a given context. In the present
study, we will content ourselves with accommodation theory or "accommodative processes" (Giles
& Coupland, 1991) in relation to identity, with a view to shedding light on the different ways in
which speakers may manipulate language "to maintain integrity, distance or identity" (ibid, p. 66).
Furthermore, we will address ourselves to the reasons why low-prestige language varieties and
stigmatised accents persist in a society where the use of standard speech confers prestige and
power on its users. In short, the study of accommodation theory may, on the one hand, reveal the
extent to which language impinges on our lives, resulting in the maintenance or breakdown of
human relationships, and on the other give useful insights into the tendency for different varieties to
evoke or "trigger" different perceptions of their speakers.

How many times have we come across a "different" accent or pronunciation of an individual
sound without adopting a critical stance or making guesses as to the speaker's non-linguistic
characteristics, such as status, education, class, or even intelligence? In fact, the slightest nuance in
pronunciation, not to mention stylistic discrepancies, can as often as not "have evaluative
repercussions for its utterer" (ibid, p. 32). Huspek (1986: 158, cited in Giles & Coupland, 1991: 32)
contends that, if someone says, "I went joggin' this morning" instead of "I went jogging this
morning," chances are that in the first case he will be perceived as being of lower rank than in the
second case. As Giles & Clair (1979: 17) note, "language is not a homogeneous, static system. It is
multi-channelled, multi-variable and capable of vast modifications from context to context by the
speaker, slight differences of which are often detected by listeners and afforded social significance."
Given the fact that even the most trivial aspects of speech and pronunciation can take on crucial
importance, it stands to reason that individuals, consciously or unconsciously, should, among other
things, seek or eschew identification with others through language. It is in this light that
accommodation theory has become an important, albeit controversial and besetting, issue in
sociolinguistics and social psychology.

It is a truism that accommodating to others' speech may prove beneficial or detrimental, in

the long run. For example, immigrants whose command of standard English or any other language is
not "up to scratch" is bound to suffer discrimination and prejudice on the part of teachers and
society at large, which puts paid to their educational and career prospects. Moreover, adapting our
speech patterns (pronunciation, speech rate, content etc.) to those of our interlocutors can exert a
tremendous influence on our career prospects and prestige, or even affect the judicial outcome of a
trial.

At any rate, accommodation theory or "interpersonal accommodation theory" has sprung

from the awareness that speakers are not merely "incumbents" (Runciman, 1998) of roles imposed
on them by society but rather as inquirers attempting to comprehend themselves and others.
Viewing individuals as objects called upon to modify their speech in accordance with socially
prescribed norms leaves much to be desired, in so far as it ignores the interactants" feelings and
motives, which undoubtedly inform and permeate the production and interpretation of their verbal
output. Accommodation theory focuses on the interactive aspects of communication and highlights
its "negotiative" nature. So, in order to do justice to this model of speech diversity - that is,
interpersonal accommodation theory - we should examine four social psychological theories that
actually constitute it and account for people's tendency to converge towards or diverge away from
the speech of others: similarity-attraction, social exchange, causal attribution, and Tajfel's theory of
intergroup distinctiveness.