Page 21 [21]
OCR
CHAPTER 3 —o> — LITERATURE REVIEW FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO CODE-SWITCHING Since Gumperz’s definition of conversational code-switching “as the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems”, there have been attempts at understanding the why’s and how’s of code-switching. By now, there is a consensus that the use and meaning of code-switching is not arbitrary but can be interpreted as interdependent “between the subjective, the objective and the social worlds”. Going along this threefold distinction of perspectives to the meaning of code-switching, theorists vary in terms of the significance they contribute to the subjective, objective and social factors as the most salient in the interpretation of code-switching. Placing the meaning and interpretation of code-switching in the dimension of subjective, objective, and social realities, there is also an ongoing discussion among functional theorists about the divisive issue whether code-switching can be assumed to index certain constructs of an already existing, ‘objective’ social reality, or whether it must not be assumed to index any social construct, but only as a linguistic means of constructing, (re)negotiating a ‘subjective’ reality. This ongoing debate can be placed in the wider context of the discussion of phenomenology ((re)constructivism) and essentialism ((post) structuralism) in social sciences, that is, how much social reality can be taken for granted, and from a linguistic perspective, how much of it is constructed and/or indexed or categorized by language. Specifically, there is a polysemy of how much interpretation of the instances of code-switching can rely purely on the linguistic and conversational (‘objective’) meaning of these instances; how 4 John J. Gumperz, Discourse Strategies, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press, 1982, 59 15 Agnes Bolonyai, Who was the best: Power, knowledge and rationality in bilingual girls’ code choices, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9 (1) (2005), 24 +19 +
