LITERATURE REVIEW
2.3 ATTITUDES TOWARD CODE-SWITCHING
2.3.3 THE ATTITUDE OF MONOLINGUALS AND BILINGUALSTOWARDS CS
encapsulated by Sarinjieve (1999:129) who states: "English is still perceived as the panacea to solve all perceived language problems and the means by which to achieve all the goals ofeveryday living."Inhisstudy of students fonn Vista, Sebokeng, aimed at investigating why in spite of the high failure rate students choose to learn in English, Sarinjieve shows that they see English as important for the future and the achievement of goals. This is confirmed by Polenis (1984, in Sarinjieve 1999:133) who distinguishes between the mother tongue and the spoken and written fonns of English both at work and school. He states that English enjoys greater status than the home language and could be viewed as the language for 'higher' and 'special occasions'. Cluver (2000:81) however, notes that speakers who are educated in a dominant language (e.g. English) often overemphasise what they see as the positive aspects of that language while downgrading many aspects of their own culture and language. Inview of the high esteem awarded to English by both native and non-native speakers of English, it is of no surprise that researchers such as Heller (1988), Nwoye (1992) and Finlayson and Slabbert (1997) show that many people have negative attitudes towards CS. The literature on attitudes towards CS is discussed below.
2.3.3 THE ATTITUDE OF MONOLINGUALS AND BILINGUALSTOWARDS
phenomenon in their classrooms (Norrish 1997:2). Various reasons have been given for this attitude. Inthe case of monolinguals, the concern is that they are often unable to determine why the switching is taking place (Elridge 1996:303). Also, educators fear that CS might be an indication that a speaker is less than fully competent in either ofthe two languages involved (Faltis 1989:118). Those who advise against CS argue that the child "becomes confused, or his intelligence affected in some way or his speech impaired (by stuttering) and above all that he may end up not speaking any language properly" (Hoffinann 1991 :94). Gibbons (1994:6) suggests that such attitudes occur because CS does not sound conventional, because people do not understand the role CS plays in natural development and usage,and because we have little control over this phenomenon, we tend to see them as aberrations.
However, it is not only monolinguals who hold negative attitudes toward CS. Bilinguals also differ among themselves in their attitude to CS, both their own and other people's. Some have a relaxed disposition towards it, others consider CS to be a linguistic impurity or a sign of laziness and therefore try to avoid it or correct themselves when they realize they have engaged in CS behaviour. The latter group are also likely to signal intolerance towards their bilingual interlocutors' CS (Hoffinann 1991: 113). The notion that CS is some form of deviant behaviour can be so powerful that even those who use CS can be unaware about their behaviour and vigorously deny doing so (Gibbons 1994:6; Nwoye 1992:366; Wardhaugh 1992: 109;
Kamwangamalu 1989:326; Hatch 1976:201). In addition, Helier (1988:7) notes that some bilinguals even consider this type of talking as "not real language".
Gumperz (1982:62-3) reports a range of differing attitudes to CS cross-culturally. Some
characterize it as an extreme fonn of mixing attributable to lack of education, bad manners, or improper control of two languages. Others see it as a legitimate form of informal talk. Similarly, Myers-Scotton(1993:47) points out that those who do not recognize the systematicity ofCS, or the fact that CS serves a variety of functions, may be negatively judgmental about this phenomenon. They regard CS as sloppy use oflanguage, as a corruption of the mother tongues and an indication of the language deficiency of the speaker.
Furthennore, Gumperz (1982:63) notes that when political ideology changes, attitudes towards CS may change too. For example, in California and elsewhere in the South West pocho or calo served as a pejorative tenn for the Spanish of local Chicanos. But with the awakening of ethnic consciousness and the growing pride in local folk traditions, the use of these languages become symbolic for Chicano ethnic values and are frequently used in the modern Chicano poetry and prose. Similarly, in a study of attitudes towards languages among Tanzanians, Blommaert (1992:59) shows that Tanzanians displayed a negative attitude towards English during their pre- independence days because they associated English with colonialism and dominance. However, after Tanzania gained its independence, the younger generation of Tanzania perceive English as modern and non-conforming. A comparison ofthis scenario can perhapsbemade with the role of Afrikaans among African pupils in South Africa. During the apartheid era when Afrikaans was forced upon African students, they actively resisted it. However, currently, there seems to be a somewhat passive acceptance of Afrikaans as a second language in spite of the inclusion of the nine African languages in the education curriculum. One can ofcourse argue that the students do not have much say in the choice ofthe language being offered at schools.Itis, however, not within the scope of this study to elaborate on this issue.
The conflict between opinions and practice of English and CS inthe classroom is evident in a study by Auerbach (1993). In an attempt to investigate the extent to which such tenets of the English only policy, such as 'English is best taught monolingually' underlie attitudes among ESL educators in the United States, Auerbach (1993) conducted a briefsurvey at a TESOL conference.
In response to the question: "Do you believe that ESL students should be allowed to use their L 1 in the ESL classroom?" 20% ofthe respondents gave an unqualified yes, 30% gave an unqualified no, and the remaining 50% said sometimes. Auerbach concluded that despite the fact that 80%
ofthe educators allowed the use ofthe Ll at times, the English-onlymaximis so strong that they didn't trust their own practice. They assigned a negative value to 'lapses' into the L1, seeing them as failures or as a cause for guilt (Auerbach 1993:14).
The phenomenon of CShasnot only met with resistance in the educational arena, but has even been disapproved of or, in certain cases, proscribed by school or education department rules (Peires 1994:15). For example, in a study of Zulu-English bilingual children in South Africa, Martin (1997:134) reports that the children said that they were not allowed to speak Zulu in class, although many admitted to speaking it on the playground. This is also evident in my own study.
For example, one interviewee makes reference to how in an English medium school in which he had formerly taught, when non-native speakers of English were first introduced to the school, teachers demanded that all conversationsbeheld in English and learners were reprimandedifthey did otherwise [sample appendix 2c,T4). Yet, in practice, research conducted by ELTIC (citedin Peires 1994: 16) shows that teachersinAfrican schools have a positive attitude towards using two or more languages in class: 63% state that they would liketo use more than one language in class in order to help pupils and about 33% actually do so. Mystudy also reveals that teachers who
have the linguistic facility to employ CS do so, to fulfill a variety of pedagogical and social functions (see chapter 3). In addition, some English monolinguals ofmy study said that they would employ CS ifthey could speak their pupils' NL.
In other instances, teachers and researchers in English as a second language have been concemed with minimizing CS in the classroom. Willis (1981 :xiv), for instance, suggests that: "Ifthe students start speaking in their own language without your permission ... it generally means that something is wrong with the lesson." Similarly, Adendorff (1993:4) reports that when Zulu- English teachers were questioned about the prevalence of CS and the purposes behind it in predominantly "Black" classrooms, their responses imply that CS is "an indecent, forbidden form ofbehaviour." Adendorffnotes that it seems asifCS is something teachers are ashamed to admit to. Similarly, one interviewee in my study stated that he never uses any Zulu in his classroom, but uses CS "sometimes" (presumably outside the classroom) but thinks that this behaviour is "bad"
and gives cause for embarrassment [sample appendix 2c,T2).
People, however, differ in their attitudes toward CS. As an instance, in their study of CS in an urban township of SA, Finlayson and Slabbert (1997) found that opinions differ among respondents about the desirability of CS. One thing however, was clear i.e. they saw CS, as an effort to accommodate their listener, as a form of "destruction, dilution or simplification of the pure language" (Finlayson and Slabbert 1997:405). Similarly, Kamwangamalu (1989:326) notes that some people consider CS as "corrupt" and "impure". Finlayson and Slabbert (1997:406) show that the high regard that speakers have for the 'pure' languages is demonstrated by the fact that respondents would unconsciously switch towards the standard variety in reaction to a speaker
using a pure variety on a tape recording. Likewise, Agheyisi (1977:97) shows that code-mixing with English in Nigeria is considered "corrupt, adulterated, bastardized and impure" linguistic behaviour. In my own study, one interviewee, while admitting that there are benefits to using the learners'NL at times, stated that she would "like to keep English pure" as it is "becoming degenerated". Interestingly, she also states that CS is "inevitable" in South Africa [sample appendix 2c,T5].
Even though CS serves important communicative and cognitive functions, Ouran (1994:5) states that in a number ofcommunities, some social stigma is attached to CS by both in- and- out groups.
As an example, she cites Gibbons' (1983) study ofCantonese and English in Hong Kong. Gibbons shows that Chinese speakers use English to create an impression ofstatus and westernization, and Catonese to create an impression of humility and solidarity. However, the use of a mix of Cantonese and English" is considered "ill-mannered, show-off, ignorant, not good looking, aggressive, and proud" from the Catonese point of view. Similarly, in my own study one learner interviewee stated that when with friends at a social gathering he uses Zulu becauseifhe used English his friends would say : "You are proud now" [sample appendix 2d, L6].