LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS IN CODE-SWITCHING AND PEDAGOGY
2.1.3 KAMWANGAMALU'S (1998) 'CODE-IN-BETWEEN'
addressee. CS as an exploratory choice, however, is of no relevance to my study as participants are familiar with each other and know the linguistic repertoire and expectations of· their conversational partners.
To conclude, Myers Scotton's 'Markedness Model', within which CS can be seen as a means to encode both power and solidarity, a means to negotiate either greater or less social distance than is normative in a given situation, is of relevance to this study for a number of reasons, as I have noted in the foregoing literature. The participants in this research probably share norms for such features as status ofparticipants, topic (aspect ofthe lesson) and setting (the classroom).Interms of the 'Markedness Model', teacher and learner code-choices would fall within the markedness continuum of unmarked and marked choices as both teacher and pupils would engage in negotiation of meaning to achieve certain goals. This is to say that even though CS is largely an unconscious phenomenon (Gumperz 1982; Adendorff 1993; Peires 1994) bilingual participants resort to CS to fulfill specific social and pedagogical functions such as achieving solidarity, emphasising ideas, explaining vocabulary and concepts and so on, evidence of which appears in chapter 3.
group, less-personal and more fonnal relations indicating objectification or speaker distance - the language of socio-economic advancement (Gumperz 1982:66,83,95; Romaine 1989:165;
Kamwangamalu 1998:277). As an example, in his study of the "we-code" - "they-code"
dichotomy in an Indian context of Hindi-English CS, Gumperz (1982:92) demonstrates that whereas a shift to "we-code" (Hindi) is perceived as signifying more of a personal appeal, a shift to "they-code" (English) is more suggestive of a warning or mild threat.
In the South African context, however, the "we-they-code" dichotomy is not so straightforward.
The "we-code" would refer to language of a specific group of people. Thus, for example, in my own study, in Gumperz's view, for English-Zulu bilinguals in the domain ofthe school, and more especially the classroom, "we-code" would be Zulu and "they-code" would be English, their L2.
However, the opposite holds true for English speaking monolinguals, in the same domain for whom "we-code" and "they-code" would be English and Zulu respectively. Thus, for example, in Gumperz's view the use of "we-code" in the experimental group of my study, serves to fulfill a variety of social and pedagogical functions. To quote just one example, in the lesson 'Kid Playboy' (appendix 4a), one pupil stated: "She can qoma you" [She can fall in love with you]. By switching to his mother tongue, the pupil, probably, though unconsciously, meant to achieve solidarity with his classmates and bring relief to an otherwise serious discussion of the story.
However, in view of the complexity of the South African situation, with its adoption of eleven official languages, and. other, approximately fourteen spoken languages, Kamwangamalu (1998:277,278,280) argues that the "we-code" versus "they-code" dichotomy is inadequate in describing the linguistic scenario in South Africa. Many South Africans are not just bilingual but multilingual. As an attestation ofthe linguistic repertoire ofmany South Africans, Kamwangamalu
cites the following account, which appears in Mesthrie (1995), of a 23 year old Johannesburg student:
My father's home language was Swati, and my mother's home language was Tswana. But .I grew up in a Zulu-speaking area; we used mainly Zulu and Swati at home. But from my mother's side I also learned Tswana well.Inmy high school I came into contact with lots ofSotho and Tswana students, so I can speak these two languages well. And of course I know English and Afrikaans. With my friends I also use Tsotsitaal.
My own research also shows that for the majority of the subjects for whom Zulu is their mother tongue, they are familiar, to some degree or the other, with Afrikaans and English.Inaddition, as the data obtained from questionnaires and interviews reveal, there are others who can also speak Xhosa and/or other unspecified African languages. In view of this linguistic complexity, Kamwangamalu (1998) proposes a third dimension, namely, the "code-in-between", that is, a perceptibly neutral code. As such, whereas previously South African Africans perceived English as a "they-code" during the period of British colonization of South Africa, and then as a "we- code" when Afrikaans emerged as a language ofoppression and English was seen as the language of upliftment, in the current democratic South Africa, according to Kamwangamalu, English is perceived as the "code-in-between".
In the post-apartheid era, South Africa does not accord English any special rights or advantages over the other ten official languages. Kamwangamalu points out that, in fact, in section 3(2). the constitution stipulates that:
"any person may communicate in writing and orally with a government department in any official language ..."
and that:
"any attempt by the government to act in any linguistic manner or ... to allow any language/languages to dominate others would be unconstitutional..."
Yet, when one looks at the various events in the political and economic arenas, English is the language that is exclusively used. Undisputedly, English enjoys a special, covert status in South Africa. Kamwangamalu argues thatas the participants of the various political events come from various ethnic groups in South Africa, yet conduct discussions exclusively in English, the use of English cannot be described in terms of Gumperz's "we-code" vs "they-code" dichotomy. This is so because English is not being used for the purpose ofcommunicating with outsiders or for the purpose of in-group, informal activities. Hence, the proposed term "code-in-between" is a more appropriate description oflanguage in use in the given context. Similarly, in my own study, more particularly, the control group, where English is almost the exclusive code in teacher-pupil interaction, English cannot be perceived as either "we-code" or "they-code". The purpose of using English in the literature ESL classroom is neither to communicate with strangers nor for personalized activities, but to fulfill more formal, pedagogical functions. Therefore, within the context ofEnglish monolingual teacher and bilingual learners in the classroom, "code-in-between"
is a more appropriate description of the use of English.
In the context of my study, English is not the only code used by the participants. On the school grounds, staff room and classrooms, and more pointedly, the experimental group of this study, bilingual participants use Zulu-English CS as well. Indeed, as I discuss later in this thesis, CS for the bilingual teachers and learners is a norm in the classroom. According to Kamwangamalu, for those who engage in CS behaviour, CS is a "we-code" and is therefore, in terms of Myers Scotton's 'Markedness Model' (discussed in the preceding section, 2.1.2, of this part of the
literature), an unmarked choice in the sense that it is mostly used for in-group interactions. On the other hand, for non-codeswitchers, CS is a "they-code". Additionally, CS can be perceived as a
"code-in-between" in the sense that it is used as a neutral strategy and thus enables the speaker to achieve certain goals that might not be attainable. through the use of only one language (Kamwangamalu 1998:287).
Finally, whether a language qualifies as "we-code", ''they-code'' or "code-in-between" is mainly dependent on the context of the situation and the type of social goals one wishes to achieve in a given speech situation (Kamwangamalu 1998:278). This theoretical framework is pertinent to this research as it is concerned with perceiving English, not as a "they-code" or "we-code", but a neutral code that enables speakers to achieve specific goals, as is the case in the control group of this study. In addition, it is relevant in that among English monolinguals and non-codeswitchers, CS might be perceived as a "they-code"; by codeswitchers who do not wish their English monolinguals to know what they are talking about, as a "we-code"; and by codeswitchers in the experimental classroom, as a "code-in-between". I shall,however, return to this discussion, in chapter 3.
2.1.4 GORDON WELLS' (1982) 'RECIPROCAL INTERACTION MODEL OF