Page 52 [52]
CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2 The principle of symbolic domination [POWER]
According to Bolonyai and Bhatt those instances of code-switching can be
classified under the principle of symbolic domination which enable “[social
actors] to maximize symbolic dominance and/or social distance in relational
practice, i. e., [social] actors switch to the language that is best positioned to
index or construct power, status, authority, social distance, and/or difference
between self and other(s)”!22.
Therefore, such instances of code-switching are subsumed in this principle
which enable the speaker to express or negotiate socio-cognitive structures
or relational frames according to the perceived or desired social status of
participants in interrelation to one another. The three principles of OT in
bilingual use “framing relational-interpersonal communication” are Power,
Solidarity, and Face'**. As a higher social status (dominance, power) cannot
exist without presupposing a lower one (concurrence, solidarity), the principle
of Power is in a complementary position in relation with the principle of
Solidarity responsible for social concurrence. The principle of Solidarity and
Face will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
A code-switch complying with the principle of Power is a linguistic resource
drawn upon to index, in unequal social relations, a higher, dominant, or
superior position among the participants of a linguistic situation. In some
diglossic language pairs, the direction of code-switching per se can assign
a dominant position, but this rule cannot be taken as universal. It is always
the given situation and the way in which participants position themselves in
relation to one another that contextualizes code-switches as linguistic means
serving to index unequal social status, power, or dominance.
Code-switching as a means of indexing social relations has been widely
discussed in the code-switching literature. Of the socio-pragmatic functions of
code-switches enumerated by previous theorists, 26 have been classified under
the principle of symbolic domination. To mention but a few, Power can express
“they-code”™, “authority”, increasing social status or distance!”‘, and “power¬
wielding”””’.
12:
D
Bhatt — Bolonyai, Ibid., 528
Bhatt — Bolonyai, Ibid., 524
Gumperz, Discourse Strategies
Amy Lin, Teaching in Two Tongues: Language Alternation in Foreign Language Classrooms,
Research Report, 3. City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, 1990;
Myers-Scotton, Social Motivations for Code-switching; Rosita Rindler Schjerve, Code¬
switching as an indicator for language shift? Evidence from Sardinian-Italian bilingualism, in:
Rodolfo Jacobson (ed.), Code-switching Worldwide II, Berlin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter,
1998, 221-247
Auer, Introduction, 1-24; Jens Normann Jorgensen, Children’s acquisition of code-switching
for power yielding, in: Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in Conversation. Language Interaction
and Identity, London, New York, Routledge, 1998, 237-258; Trine Esdahl, Language choice
12:
œ
125
126
127
+ 50 +