grammatical constraints and motivations for - University of the ...
grammatical constraints and motivations for - University of the ... grammatical constraints and motivations for - University of the ...
A variety of listeners call in during this broadcast. While the host appears to know some of them, there are callers who are speaking to the host for the first time. The speakers are all members of the Cape Flats speech community, but vary in their linguistic abilities and proficiency in English and Afrikaans. As evident from the discourse, some speak English without any difficulty, whereas others speak only Afrikaans. Caller 2 The second call that the host receives is from an Afrikaans speaker, who appears to be very proficient in the language, utilizing the standard variety. However, it is still very likely that he is a member of the Cape Flats speech community, based merely on the fact that he listens to the show. The conversation is interesting in that, even though the host is addressed in Afrikaans, his response is dominantly English. This could be due to the fact that the caller speaks a standard variety or ‘suiwer’ Afrikaans and the host is unable to communicate in this variety. Therefore, he switches to English as a means of, either avoiding embarrassment, or as a means of putting up a social barrier. Thus, switching occurs as a marked choice (Myers-Scotton, 1993a, 2006a). What is also of interest is that the host does not understand the caller when he asks: “… aan watter gronde gaan u?” (turn 383). The host responds, “Watter wat?” (turn 384) implying that he did not hear the end of the question, but then admits in turn 388 that he, in fact, did not understand the question at all – “Ek verstaan nou nie die vraag’ie.” The host only comes to understand what the caller meant once the co-host puts forward the question, altering the vocabulary. The host responds to the caller in English mostly, except for a few switches to Afrikaans which are socially motivated. In turn 390, “watter grond” is a repetition of the caller’s words, while “nog ‘n ding” and “nou die dag” are both colloquialisms and sentence fillers. Switches including “ek” are motivated by the 94
speaker’s close association with his Afrikaans identity, such as “ek is nie ge-fire nie” and “ek is niks.” (turn 390). The host may have chosen to answer the caller in English as a means of putting up a social barrier or as a means of intentionally differentiating himself from the caller. Thus, codeswitching occurs as a marked choice (Myers-Scotton, 1993a, 2006a). This may be a result of the fact that the two speak different varieties of Afrikaans. The caller speaks formal, ‘suiwer’ Afrikaans, while the host speaks Kaapse Afrikaans and, as a result, has difficulty understanding the caller. Therefore, by speaking English the host implies that he and the caller do not share in-group membership or a communal identity as the two do not share a common variety of Afrikaans. It is also a possibility that the host selected English as a means of avoiding inadequacy. Clearly, he would not have been able to communicative as effectively as he would have wished had he attempted to speak ‘suiwer’ Afrikaans. Thus, he switches to a code that enables him to avoid embarrassment, but which also allows him to achieve his communicative goals. In this way, the switch serves a virtuosity function (Myers-Scotton, 1993a, 2006a). In turn 394, the host reverts back to his normal style of talking. He begins the turn in Afrikaans and goes about switching as he usually does – “Is very deep [vədΛx] (vandag), verstaan jy, but ek wil ‘ie sad wies ‘ie, man …” Of importance here is the fact that he is no longer addressing the caller, but the cohost, instead. Thus, it is clear that he intentionally switched codes when addressing the caller as he now reverts back to his usual style of conversation once he addresses someone with whom he shares common ground. Here, switching functions as a means of addressee specification (Cook-Gumperz, 1976) and also serves a directive function (Appel & Muysken, 1987). In turn 396 the host responds to the caller for a final time. Here he responds in Afrikaans, but merely repeats what the caller has just said – “… voorspoed vir u 95
- Page 43 and 44: context in which the speaker finds
- Page 45 and 46: 3.0 Introduction Chapter 3 Grammati
- Page 47 and 48: codeswitching as they do reflect th
- Page 49 and 50: Constituent insertion differs from
- Page 51 and 52: In these examples, the main verbs a
- Page 53 and 54: 4.0 Introduction Chapter 4 Research
- Page 55 and 56: Thus, qualitative research is an in
- Page 57 and 58: However, contrary to Auer’s 1984
- Page 59 and 60: The transcripts were then analyzed
- Page 61 and 62: 5.0 Introduction Chapter 5 Discussi
- Page 63 and 64: Turn Phrase Table 1: Switched conju
- Page 65 and 66: In turns 22, 53, 59 and 63, English
- Page 67 and 68: Unlike in English, when the past te
- Page 69 and 70: similarity to that of Afrikaans due
- Page 71 and 72: Table 7: Afrikaans determiners with
- Page 73 and 74: possessive. However, it appears as
- Page 75 and 76: indefinite articles, ‘a’ or ‘
- Page 77 and 78: The following are examples from the
- Page 79 and 80: Turn Mixed verb Afrikaans equivalen
- Page 81 and 82: In turns 421 and 532, the host subs
- Page 83 and 84: the violation of this constraint, p
- Page 85 and 86: nouns) are used. I have selected a
- Page 87 and 88: What follows are a few switches to
- Page 89 and 90: The next switch is the insertion of
- Page 91 and 92: has chosen to split the phrase into
- Page 93: The discourse suggests that the hos
- Page 97 and 98: The next, and final, switch is to A
- Page 99 and 100: of proceedings throughout the show.
- Page 101 and 102: host is being somewhat sarcastic, b
- Page 103 and 104: also of the ways in which language
- Page 105 and 106: 6.0 Introduction Chapter 6 Conclusi
- Page 107 and 108: • While conjunctions do agree wit
- Page 109 and 110: References Appel, R & Muysken, P. (
- Page 111 and 112: Hamers, J. & Blanc, M. (2000). Bili
- Page 113 and 114: Ponelis, F. (1993). The Development
- Page 115 and 116: Young, D. (1988). Bilingualism and
- Page 117 and 118: APPENDIX
- Page 119 and 120: First Transcript: Update Kaapse Vla
- Page 121 and 122: 52. Clarence: Wilfred? 53. Suster:
- Page 123 and 124: [laughter] 62. Clarence: Die’s (d
- Page 125 and 126: terrace and so I couldn’t go up t
- Page 127 and 128: {So he got an sms back} to say, “
- Page 129 and 130: then you go from Notre-Dame up the
- Page 131 and 132: 201. Suster: Yes Clarence, it’s,
- Page 133 and 134: 258. Suster Ja {Yes}, my introducti
- Page 135 and 136: 322. Suster = = Nou {Now}, Clarence
- Page 137 and 138: 376. Suster Will do. Thank you my s
- Page 139 and 140: a short while. Music followed by ad
- Page 141 and 142: ecause … did I really say that, y
- Page 143 and 144: speaker}. En toe stoot hy nou die m
speaker’s close association with his Afrikaans identity, such as “ek is nie ge-fire<br />
nie” <strong>and</strong> “ek is niks.” (turn 390).<br />
The host may have chosen to answer <strong>the</strong> caller in English as a means <strong>of</strong> putting up<br />
a social barrier or as a means <strong>of</strong> intentionally differentiating himself from <strong>the</strong><br />
caller. Thus, codeswitching occurs as a marked choice (Myers-Scotton, 1993a,<br />
2006a). This may be a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> two speak different varieties <strong>of</strong><br />
Afrikaans. The caller speaks <strong>for</strong>mal, ‘suiwer’ Afrikaans, while <strong>the</strong> host speaks<br />
Kaapse Afrikaans <strong>and</strong>, as a result, has difficulty underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> caller.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, by speaking English <strong>the</strong> host implies that he <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> caller do not share<br />
in-group membership or a communal identity as <strong>the</strong> two do not share a common<br />
variety <strong>of</strong> Afrikaans.<br />
It is also a possibility that <strong>the</strong> host selected English as a means <strong>of</strong> avoiding<br />
inadequacy. Clearly, he would not have been able to communicative as<br />
effectively as he would have wished had he attempted to speak ‘suiwer’<br />
Afrikaans. Thus, he switches to a code that enables him to avoid embarrassment,<br />
but which also allows him to achieve his communicative goals. In this way, <strong>the</strong><br />
switch serves a virtuosity function (Myers-Scotton, 1993a, 2006a).<br />
In turn 394, <strong>the</strong> host reverts back to his normal style <strong>of</strong> talking. He begins <strong>the</strong><br />
turn in Afrikaans <strong>and</strong> goes about switching as he usually does – “Is very deep<br />
[vədΛx] (v<strong>and</strong>ag), verstaan jy, but ek wil ‘ie sad wies ‘ie, man …” Of<br />
importance here is <strong>the</strong> fact that he is no longer addressing <strong>the</strong> caller, but <strong>the</strong> cohost,<br />
instead. Thus, it is clear that he intentionally switched codes when<br />
addressing <strong>the</strong> caller as he now reverts back to his usual style <strong>of</strong> conversation<br />
once he addresses someone with whom he shares common ground. Here,<br />
switching functions as a means <strong>of</strong> addressee specification (Cook-Gumperz, 1976)<br />
<strong>and</strong> also serves a directive function (Appel & Muysken, 1987).<br />
In turn 396 <strong>the</strong> host responds to <strong>the</strong> caller <strong>for</strong> a final time. Here he responds in<br />
Afrikaans, but merely repeats what <strong>the</strong> caller has just said – “… voorspoed vir u<br />
95
Change language