In one of the most interesting examples of tactical manipulation of speech varieties discussed in the

sociolinguistic literature, Mitchell-Kernan (1972) reports that, at the end of an ethnographic session with
an African-American subject in Oakland, USA, the interviewee suggests it is time for him to go by
‘marking’ with the expression: Tempus fugit, baby. Symbolically, it is not the ‘Latin’/‘English’ contrast
that the speaker exploits, but rather ‘educated English’ versus ‘colloquial speech’ (contrast, in this
regard, the actual example with a hypothetical Tempus fugit, Ms Smith).

In cases such as these, it seems premature to state a priori that the systems in contrast are ‘Galizan’ and
‘Spanish’; rather, interpretive microanalysis reveals that the speakers exploit contrasts between a
‘reporting code’ and a ‘complaining code’, or between a ‘procedural code’, an ‘informal code’ and a
‘joking code’ within the same speech event. We might say that at given points speakers seem to be
‘speaking Galizan in Spanish’, or vice versa; but, importantly, neither ‘Galizan’ nor ‘Spanish’ per se match
strictly any of the communicative codes listed. Instead, lexical, syntactic and prosodic materials from
both varieties are fused into an amalgam, the situated meaning of which is not directly computable from
the overall meanings (for instance, ‘informality’ vs. ‘formality’) commonly associated with each of the
‘languages’.

The boundaries between the ‘codes’, however, often remain unclear. It rather seems that particular
markers (e.g. [d] for [ð]) may come to represent entire social styles with associated meanings and given
status in members’ linguistic ideologies. If one, then, may speak ‘Creole’ in ‘London Black English’ (or if
one may speak ‘Galizan’ in ‘Spanish’), the doubt remains as to when exactly the use of a particular
marker constitutes a ‘switch’, or, more importantly, as to why apparently consistent stretches of
discourse in what looks like a single variety should not contain internal code-switches

Within this now vast field, the present volume is devoted to the study of code-switching as (part of a)
verbal action; as such, code-switching has and creates communicative and social meaning, and is in need
of an interpretation by co-participants as well as analysts. The contributors to this volume are united by
their conviction that in ordder to explicate the meaning of codeswitching as (part of a) verbal action, the
‘alternating use of two or more “codes” within one conversational episode’ (thus the usual definition)
needs to be taken seriously as such, i.e. as a conversational event.

From earlier and more recent research we know (a) that code-switching is related to and indicative of
group membership in particular types of bilingual speech communities, such that the regularities of the
alternating use of two or more languages within one conversation may vary to a considerable degree
between speech communities, and (b) that intrasentential code-switching, where it occurs, is
constrained by syntactic and morphosyntactic considerations which may or may not be of a universal
kind.
The central research question of the first type of research is how language choice reflects power and
inequality, or is an index of the ‘rights and obligations’ attributed to incumbents of certain social
categories.

The concepts of ‘we-code’ and ‘they-code’, first introduced into the literature on code-switching by
Gumperz, have been used productively by many researchers. The concept of ‘identity’ is often invoked
at the same time. Gumperz, for example, in his discussion of ‘we-’ and ‘they-’ codes, also makes a link
with a notion of group identity: For example, Gumperz, in the quote given in section 1, talks of an
‘association between communicative style and group identity

For Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, linguistic behaviour involves ‘shifts of identity’ on the part of the
speaker, through which she or he ‘proclaims’ her identity.

For most users of these terms, ‘we-code’ and ‘they-code’ refer respectively to the ethnic language of a
bilingual community,1 and the language of the wider society within which that community forms a
minority. The opposition of ‘we-’ versus ‘they-’ codes thus presupposes a particular relationship
between monolingual and bilingual communities, as well as particular types of social relationship
within the minority group

‘But it must be emphasized that, in situations such as those discussed here, this association between
communicative style and group identity is a symbolic one: it does not directly predict actual usage’

The ‘they-code’, English, is required for the formal business of the class, but Cantonese is appropriate
for informal functions. In the following example, English is the appropriate language for the greeting,
but when the teacher corrects herself, she uses Cantonese (which she shares as a native language
with most of her students) to ‘cancel’ her incorrect utterance (data from Cheung 1995):

Although a simplistic equation of ‘we’ with ethnic minority language would suggest that London
Jamaican should function as the ‘we-’ code for Britishborn Caribbean speakers, an ethnographic study
of the community combined with an analysis of actual conversational practices shows that things are
in fact more complicated. While London Jamaican could be seen as the ethnically exclusive code
(although it is used by some white people as well,)2 it is the ability to use both London English and
London Jamaican which most saliently characterises the ‘Black British’ speaker.3

Indeed, the use of London Jamaican is often very limited in terms of number of utterances; in most
informal conversations London English predominates in terms of quantity.

MARKED-UNMARKED (23)

SPEAKER IS A CREATIVE ACTOR AND LINGUISTIC CHOICES ARE ACOMPLISHING MORE THAN JUST
CONVEYING REFERENTIAL MEANING
U kojim lingvističkim uslovima se dešava prekljucivanje kodova, analiza dvojezičnih situacija

Kako se promenom koda menja identitet

Odnos we they, drugo