Page 188 [188]
OCR
CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION to be irrelevant in the G2 group. Still, traces of the purist attitude to codeswitching can be observed in the G2 sample, too, but it seems to reflect more the parents’ set of values associated with the Hungarian language and culture than G2 respondents’ own. In conclusion, G2 speakers have a more balanced, less controversial attitude to code-switching and to the bicultural experience, and use code-switching either as a means of making up for linguistic gaps triggered by their lack of Hungarian competence or as a means of expressing their distinct bicultural identity. To summarize, both for Gl and G2 speakers code-switching can be of functional as well as of complementary nature. In terms of G1 speakers, the practice of code-switching is mostly determined by G1 speakers’ attitude to languages, whether they have a more pragmatic or purist attitude to languages, more particularly to Hungarian. Nevertheless, in terms of G2 speakers, the practice of code-switching mostly depends on their Hungarian competence. Thoroughly analyzing Gl’s code-switching practices, the discourse-related sociopragmatic functions of code-switching (Perspective- and Faith-related switches) have turned out to be the most prevalent, partly, because of the specific genre of sociolinguistic interviews, and partly because code-switching serves as the most readily available discursive device enabling G1 speakers to reflect upon the multiple aspects of their socio-cognitive reality embedded in the two or more socio-cultural-linguistic backgrounds instantiated by their immigrant experience. * 186 +
