LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS IN CODE-SWITCHING AND PEDAGOGY
2.1.1 GUMPERZ'S (1982) INTERACTIONAL MODEL
Gumperz's 'Interactional Model' is based on the premise that communication is a social activity that occurs between two individuals who are able to listen to what the other has said, interpret what is said within the particular context, and respond appropriately to it (Gumperz 1982).
According to Gumperz (1982:1), only when a move elicits a response does communication take
place. There are a number of features that characterize this model. Those that are of relevance to my own research are: (a) Linguistic choices are dynamic events; (b) code choices comprise a contextualizing cue; (c) there are no assumptions about sharedness of rules or evaluative norms;
and (d) the choice of a linguistic code is mostly an unconscious one (Gumperz 1982:1-8,61). I discuss each of these characteristics and show their significance to this study.
(a) Linguistic choices are dynamic events:
In Gumperz's 'Interactional Model', interpretation of a speaker's utterance does not exist in isolation, but is an ongoing process of interpretation in conversation.Itis language use in context that enables an addressee to interpret particular contextualizing cues (a concept I discuss in (b) below), react to others and pursue their communicative ends. Just as grammatical knowledge enables the speaker to distinguish potentially meaningful sentences from non-sentences, knowledge ofthe social values associated with certain activities and social relationships implied in a message is necessary to interpret a particular context (Gumperz 1982:4-5; Gumperz and Herasimchuk
1975:81). Gumperz and Herasimchuk (1975:81) provide the following three examples:
1. They are holding a meeting to discuss the issue.
2. They are getting together to talk it over.
3. They're sittin' down to rap aboutit.
Each of these utterances can be used to describe the same event, and is thus, in a sense, referentially equivalent. However, their social implications are different. The first example is a structured situation implying specific role functions ofthe parties involved. Example 2 is unmarked with respect to these characteristics and the phrase "talk it over" implies a casual conversation.
Example 3 is unstructured and the speaker is unconfined by what can be said and to whom. These
examples demonstrate how, within the interactional model, linguistic choices are dynamic events and communication is not merely the ability to produce grammatically correct sentences. Thus, in my own study, one needs to have a knowledge of the social values associated with the relationship that exists between teacher and pupils and pupils and pupils to better understand their interaction.
Gumperz also maintains that 'true' communication occurs when interlocutors are able to create a conversation, elicit a response from the addressee, and sustain a conversation. To be able to do this interlocutors require shared background knowledge, which is usually not overtly verbalized, and abilities which transcend creating syntactically accurate sentences (Gumperz 1982:1,36;
Stubbs 1983 :5). For meaningful communication to occur members of the dyad need to be able to make inferences about the content of the interaction and what is expected of each other, i.e. the speaker and the hearer. How successful a communicative act is depends on the hearer's ability to correctly perceive the illocutionary force ofan utterance. The illocutionary force of an utterance to her/his communicative intent i.e. what s/he intends to do, such as stating, questioning, promising and complaining (Wardhaugh 1992:285). This tenet is of significance to my study as pupils' verbal and written responses need not necessarily be grammatically accurate for the illocutionary force ofthe message to be understood. Hence, in the marking oftest scripts, as I shall show in chapter 3, pupils' responses are evaluated for meaning rather than grammatical accuracy.
Inaddition, for successful communication to occur, there is need for both interlocutors to share some common background which enables inferencing to take place (Gumperz 1982:1). As an illustration, consider the following exchange between teacher and pupil:
T: Did you fetch the register?
P: Mrs Mtudi is not in.
T: Okay.Tryagain later.
This is a typical routine encounter in the domain of the school. When speaker T, the teacher, enquires ofthe hearer, speaker P, the pupil, ifs/he had fetched the register, the expected response is either "yes" /"no"/ "here it is" and the like. However, P's response is, "Mrs Mtudi is not in". On the surface, this response hardly constitutes the expected response. However, because both the teacher and pupil share the same schemata or background knowledge concerning the register, the teacher is able to make appropriate inferences and is therefore able to correctly perceive P's underlying meaning. The intended meaning ofP's utterance could be, for example, "Mrs Mtudi has not yet arrived at school, so the office where the register is kept is locked." P's response or message is understood and accepted within the context. As there are no overt linguistic cues, one can assume that both teacher and pupil rely on a shared understanding that the interaction takes place at school and on their expectations of what normally goes on in classrooms. This principle ofthe interactional model has direct relevance to this study as participants can only understand and draw conclusions aboutevents and characters ofliterary texts studied by having some background and contextual knowledge of the texts. I shall expand on this by providing examples. in my discussion in the next chapter.
(b) Code choices comprisea contextualizing cue:
Gumperz's notion of'contextualizing cue' refers to the strategic activities, such as choice ofcode, dialect, style, prosodic phenomena, conversational openings and closings and so on, of speakers . in varying their communicative behaviour within a socially agreed matrix of conventions. These
features help speakers signal and listeners interpret the communicative intent of the speaker by looking at how each utterance relates to what precedes or follows the given utterance, and so giving additional meaning to what is said and done in a conversation (Gurnperz 1982: 131-2;
Adendorff1993:5; Auer 1995:162).
Gumperz (1982: 132) explains that although contextualizing cues carry information, meanings are conveyed as part ofthe interactive process. Unlike words that can be discussed outside the context (e.g. using a dictionary for denotational meanings), meanings ofcontextualizing cues are implicit.
This means that people who are not part of the conversation will probably not recognize the contextualizing cues which are employed in it. Hence, when a listener does not react to a cue or is unaware ofits function, interpretations may differ and misunderstanding may occur. However, when participants understand and notice relevant cues, interpretative processes tend to go unnoticed (Gumperz 1982:132; Adendorff 1993:6).
The issue of contextualizing cues is of relevance to this study as bilingual participants choose code-switching from their linguistic repertoire as a contextualizing cue to signal information on communicative intent. They choose to use code-switching probably because theythinkthey would be most effective in conveying exactly what and how they want to say something, and be accurately interpreted by their listeners. Thus, for example, in the context ofthis study, bilingual teachers might choose to say something in Zulu, not because they do not have the vocabulary to do so in English, but because they believe that using Zulu would be more effective in driving a point home. Inchapter 3 of this thesis, I discuss, with examples, how bilingual teachers and learners use CS to fulfill various social and pedagogical functions which are interpreted within the context of literature teaching in the ESL classroom.
(c) There are no assumptions about sharedness of rules or evaluative norms:
The value of the interactional approach to the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the peoples of South Africa, and more pertinently to the population of this study, lies in the principle that this approach makes no assumptions about sharedness of rules or evaluative norms. People might speak the same language but show significant differences in background knowledge. They must, however, overcome or take account of the communicative symbols which signal these differences to sustain meaningful conversation. They must be able to negotiate meaning to sustain interaction and have their goals and motives understood (Gumperz 1982:6). This principle is of significance to my study as the teacher of the control group and her charges both share the same language, English, but come from different social and cultural backgrounds. In addition, as the teacher is a monolingual, the use ofCS by her pupils in class results in a lack of understanding on the part of the teacher. As the discussion in chapter 3 will show, the teacher attempts at negotiating meaning to sustain conversation between them or simply makes a marked choice to find a common footing between herself and her pupils.
(d) The choice of a linguistic code is mostly an unconscious one:
Gumperz (1982:61) notes that although CS is perceived as "higWy salient, participants immersed in the interaction itselfare quite unaware which code is used anyone time." The main concern of speakers is with the communicative effect of what they are saying. Gumperz says that selection among linguistic alternants is automatic, not readily subject to conscious recall. The social norms which govern language use here form part of the underlying knowledge which speakers use to convey meaning. This view of CS within the Interactional Model is of significance to this study as the data obtained from questionnaires and interviews show CS for the vast majority of my subjects is an unconscious choice. I shall however, discuss this in chapter 3.
To conclude, Gumperz's (1982) 'InteractionaIModel', as discussed thus far, is of relevance to this study as the participants - the bilingual teachers and learners - share a common linguistic background (Zulu and English) that makes CS possible. By looking at CS as a discourse mode or a communicative option which is available to the Zulu-English bilingual participants within the classroom, I shall demonstrate how switching serves an expressive function and has pragmatic meaning. Also, in the case of the control group where the teacher and learners probably do not not share a common socio-cultural background, I will·discuss how they would still be able to negotiate interpretations of exchanges. In addition, as I have already mentioned, Gumperz's (1982) 'Interactional Model' posits that meaningful interaction between interlocutors transcends grammatical competence. This is also of particular relevance to this investigation as learner responses, both verbal and written, should be evaluated for the message conveyed rather than for the form employed. I shall also, in chapter 3, by examining excerpts from recordings oflessons and learners' test scripts, present a discussion based on this theoretical framework.