In the Zone : Analysis and Verification
4.2.1 Analysis and Verification of Data
The field findings of the present study are analysed in the light of the Markedness Model propounded by Carol Myers-Scotton (1983, 2006). The Markedness Model views linguistic choices as negotiations of self-identity and the desired relationships with others, which speakers exercise in tune with the reaction of the listeners and the prevailing social norms. According to this theory, the bilingual speakers make their linguistic choices mainly to meet their own goals, but at the same time, they also keep their eyes open to the reaction of the listeners as the listeners form an important component of the conversation. Myers-Scotton says in this context, “The Markedness Model tries to establish a principled procedure that both speakers and listeners use to judge any linguistic choice that they might make or hear as more or
less marked, given the interaction in which it occurs.” (Myers-Scotton 2006, 14).
Under this theory, there are mainly two linguistic choices that speakers make while engaging themselves in code-switching; they are, marked choice and unmarked choice.
While discussing this theory, Myers-Scotton (1993) refers to a Rights and Obligations set (RO set) for the members of the soceity. This is a behavioural situation that conforms to the expectations of the participants in a given situation.
Such a set of expectations gets settled in the minds of the members by social norms and values or long experiences in similar situations, and it is usually maintained by members by observance of these norms and beliefs. For example, in a social gathering, if a person behaves as expected of him in such a situation, he will be said to have made an unmarked choice of behaviour. Similarly, when a speaker uses the expected language in a given situation, he will be said to have made an unmarked choice of language. “In regard to language, the unmarked choice is the linguistic reflection of any specific RO set. For example, for bilinguals in France, the unmarked choice to use in a government office is French, not any other languages that they speak. Or, for most Spanish/English bilinguals in the United States (especially if they are recent arrivals), the unmarked choice to use to elderly relatives at family gatherings is Spanish…Thus, when a speaker makes the unmarked choice, he/she is causing no social ripples because participants expect such a choice, based on experience” (Myers-Scotton 2006, 14).
Marked choices, on the other hand, are a principle of negotiations. They are not expected, predictable or pre-known in the society or situation where a given Rights and Obligations set is in force. By making a marked choice of language, the speaker seeks a new set of Rights and Obligations to be in force for that conversation. For example, an Assamese-speaking customer approaches a Bengali-speaking shopkeeper in Guwahati and speaks Bengali while requesting for two kilograms of Atta (flour) and one litre of vegetable oil on credit (observed by the author on March 27, 2006). The customer who normally speaks Assamese, switches to Bengali
apparently in an ettempt to softening the shopkeeper’s mind (by speaking the shopkeeper’s mother tongue) towards securing the credit sale. Here, the speaker indexes a new set of Rights and Obligations to be active for that conversation and situation by making a marked choice. In the words of Myers-Scotton (2006, 15), “the speaker making a marked choice is calling for a new situation, for a new RO set to be in effect. Thus, a choice that is marked in interaction X would be unmarked in interaction Y, the one that the speaker wishes to be in effect. Generally speaking, a marked choice is a negotiation about the speaker’s persona (who the speaker is) and the speaker’s relation to other participants. Thus, making a marked choice is a negotiation about either the solidarity or power dimension or both”.
The Markedness Model also presents a set of rational aspects associated with the choice of language by speakers. According to this rational choice, speakers use a particular language rather than another during verbal interaction expecting that the choice will bring them the best results. For this purpose, they assess and measure the relative costs and rewards of speaking that language. This may not necessarily mean that the choice so made is the best choice. By making a rational choice, the speaker makes calculations on the basis of his/her experiences for the best results out of the choice. Therefore, “rational choices are subjective, with the emphasis on mental calculations about getting the best outcome” (Myers-Scotton 2006).
4.2.2 The data are analysed to find how interlingual code-switching, mainly between the Mising and the Assamese, is used as linguistic devices and indexes. The data on linguistic interactions are presented as examples supporting the statement on a particular type of use. Each example is analysed by putting all the sentences in fresh lines and numbering them in the Arabic notation beginning from ‘1’ to whatever figure the number of sentences is equal to. While using the speech data, L1 is given in the normal running fonts, L2 is shown in italics and L3 and others (if any) are italicized and underlined in order to mark the speech parts belonging to the Mising, Assamese, English/Hindi respectively. This is followed by the analysis and interpretation of the language use and its implications. In the examples, the qualities
of the choices found marked or unmarked are mentioned in the analysis and interpretation, but the dominating function is given in parenthesis in the statement heading. It is noteworthy that the use of code-switching as a linguistic device and implicator, is various and has no bounds. It is as infinite as the language itself. In the present study, the use of code-switching as a major sociolinguistic device used by the Misings as found in the field work conducted in the strategically selected villages and towns/cities, are covered and presented.