Social Communication
by Alaura Sneeze
Did you know, that among black students who have graduated with a 4-year college degree, 48% of them feel like they need to often or sometimes code switch? In my point of view, code switching is when a person switches between two languages while speaking. This broad definition includes switching between “home” language and “work” language, switching behaviors to be “more acceptable”, and even dialects such as African American Vernacular English (which will be referred to as it’s abbreviation AAVE, when used in this paper). One of the few questions I had which kickstarted my interest in code switching was: why is code switching so prevalent in society? Which then, as it always does, made me question other things. Where does code switching stem from? Can you unlearn this behavior? What social/ethnic groups use this form of communication and why? My main interest in this topic comes from my enjoyment of learning about social aspects of language and the groups of people who benefit/people who experience a disadvantage because of unspoken societal rules regarding language. Additionally, I am someone who comes from a biracial family, so that has allowed me to become familiar with situations where code switching may occur. So why is any of this relevant? I believe that socially, it might become less taboo/stigmatized if there was more discussion and less ignorance regarding the topic. Furthermore, it’s important because I feel that groups who speak more than one language, along with people of color, suffer from the social consequences that come with code switching, and even lack thereof. With that being said, I hope to gain a better understanding of what code switching really is beyond my beliefs, and where it comes from. Along with how it might benefit me and/or other groups in learning more about this topic.
To begin my research, I wanted to find a source that gave me a good foundation to jump off of and one that had information I was more familiar with seeing. My reasoning for this is because I wanted to slowly navigate through the world of research. In the end, “’Code Switching’ in Sociocultural Linguistics” by Chad Nilep filled the spot perfectly. Nilep begins by claiming that he believes that code switching may not be a linguistic phenomenon, but a psychological one (5). I didn’t really understand what he meant by this until I read further, but since doing that, I actually think I agree. I believe that part of the reason people code switch comes from the mental anguish of being seen as “less” than maybe a dominant group. For example, a bilingual person of color will likely speak their non-English language around close friends and family of the same ethnicity, and dissimilarly will lean towards speaking English in a primarily white group of people or in most public settings, “… the relationship between speakers affects the choice of language variety” (Nilep 7). Nilep, additionally, includes a variety of sources in this article, citing many studies done by others. A few examples are George Barker’s (1947) description of language use among Mexican Americans in Arizona and Monica Heller’s (1992) sociolinguistic study in Ontario. Both of these studies, respectively, focus on language choice and the economics of bilingualism. One of the claims that stuck out to me was the way that Heller and many others described the relationship between identity and language. They describe this relationship in terms of economics and class (Nilep 13). Which I believe is a fair description because I believe that the way people feel about themselves (identity) and the ways they use language depend on each other. If a person feels that they need to code switch, or dismiss their native language, it may cause their sense of identity to diminish. Nilep even questions the phenomenon of bilinguals switching languages in the presence of different occasions and social groups. Now more than ever, being able to fluidly adjust to different situations and people is extremely important because it allows us to be more “dependable” from a societal standpoint.
Similarly, to adapting more fluidly to society, a professor by the name of Lakeisha Johnson, who also has a PHD in communication sciences, believed that there might be a benefit to teaching younger students how to code switch in an academic setting, in order to benefit their writing. In Johnson’s research she also claims that “The achievement gaps between poor and more affluent students are persistent and chronic, as many students living in poverty are also members of more isolated communities where dialects such as African American English and Southern Vernacular English are often spoken”(1). Like I mentioned previously, Nilep mentions that Heller believes the relationship between identity and language can be described in terms of class and economics. This belief correlates to Johnson’s in that they both make a connection between socioeconomic status and language. This belief is what I feel prompted Johnson to use the sample group that she did. The two studies done by Lakeisha Johnson involved students in second through fourth grade from two different low SES (socioeconomic status) elementary schools. These students were randomly placed into one of three groups: the control group (group 1), the editing group (group 2), and the dialect awareness group (DAWS/group 3). To start off, the control group had students reading and writing as usual, with all classroom techniques were kept the same. The editing group was given ONLY implicit attention to code switching was given to these students, meaning that there wasn’t any direct attention to get students to transition to “school” language, though it was implied. The DAWS group was given all the contents of the editing group except there was additional explicit attention to their code switching. This group focused more on the similarities and differences of “home” English versus “school” English. With the basis established, they began Study 1. Study 1 had the main goal of examining how impressionable dialect shifting might be for the student participants, who were using NMAE (non-mainstream English/ “home English”/ “non-formal” variety) in areas/contexts where MAE (mainstream English/ “school English”/ formal variety) was expected. The other goal was to examine whether explicitly focusing on home vs school English in classrooms rather than implicitly focusing on it would lead to better and greater use of school English in contexts where it’s needed. Though there were few limitations to this study such as the sample group being too small, so there weren’t any statistically significant effects or the fact that there wasn’t variability in this study regarding dialect usage, “… (68% of students were categorized as having strong variation from MAE…) (Johnson 17). The results of this first study show that giving explicit attention to code switching, allowed the students in group 3 to show a greater understanding and practice of code switching than the students in other groups. Explicit focus on encouraging code switching showed to be more effective in changing the writing of students to include more MAE. Moving onto Study 2, Johnson uses the same details in Study 1 but included a bigger sample group. The results found in this study emphasized that of Study 1 and confirmed that what was lacking in Study 1 was the larger sample group. After reading this source, and doing my own research, I found that I also made the mistake of using a small group of people to conduct my interviews instead of grouping a larger and more diverse group of people. Seeing the results of the second study, confirmed my belief that if I were to do my own research again, using a larger sample group would more likely give me the results that I was hoping for. The research aspect of this source is also what differentiates it from the other sources I found. Johnson uses these studies as a way to analyze and guide their discussion of code switching rather than discussing previous studies (Nilep) or speaking about personal experiences (Kircher-Morris).
Lastly, in terms of the source searching aspect of my research, is the podcast “Say What? Neurodivergent Code Switching” by Emily Kircher-Morris and special guests Sarah and Larry Nannery. The reason I chose this podcast was because it stands out by including a demographic of people that isn’t discussed explicitly by Nilep or Johnson. The discussion in this podcast is one that I heavily related to as a neurodivergent (ND) person. They talk plenty about the difficulties NDs have with adjusting to communication and behavioral aspects that were created in a world not for them. Communication and behavioral cues do not come naturally to NDs and when being in a social setting with neurotypical (NT) people, it is difficult for neurodivergents to automatically know how and when to use said cues. With that being said, communication skill building is mostly done by watching interactions between other people and mimicking them to seem “normal”. Personally, I have found myself struggling with these cues on multiple occasions due to ADHD, so I understand the urge to “code-switch” with how I speak and behave around other people. In her podcast, Kircher-Morris talks about the many different ways neurotypical people may benefit from understanding the communication challenges ND people face (12:22). At the same time, I wish this source focused more on the language differences of neurodivergents talking with each other versus neurodivergents speaking with neurotypicals. Additionally, I think it would’ve been really nice for them to open up a discussion about code switching specifically and its relation to masking.
My sources failed to acknowledge the discrepancies that come with masking and code switching. There is a gap with the information and relationship between these concepts. I didn’t even think about code switching in relation to neurodivergent people until stumbling across Kircher-Morris’ podcast. Masking is a behavior that neurodivergent individuals partake in to minimize or hid their neurodivergent traits in attempt to fit in and better adapt to the neurotypical world. The importance of discussing the relation between masking and code switching, is to avoid grouping neurodivergent and neurotypical people into the same space (which takes away from issues that neurodivergent individuals deal with on a daily basis). It is also relevant because opening up this discussion could potentially lead to additional assistance for neurodivergent people. My sources failed to bring neurodivergent people into the code switching conversation; and the podcast I did find dealing with these individuals specifically, missed an opportunity to use their experience as a neurodivergent person to further aid this conversation. Since masking is such an important topic, it’s important to first make it a discussion, then make sure the differences and similarities are clear. Having this in mind, we can focus on the question: What is the relation between neurodivergent masking and code switching?
In an attempt to answer this question, I conducted an interview consisting of ten questions with three follow up questions. The first ten questions I used are listed below, with the follow up questions in a separate table (Table is given at the end of the research paper, after the Works Cited for convenience):
I chose to do an interview because I felt that the biggest way to gain more insight on a subject dealing with communication was to interact with people. Since the question I’m asking can be applied to a diverse group of people, I thought it was best to directly ask questions.
Following my interviews, I sat down to analyze the results and came across some important and unexpectedly repeated results. The most relevant results I found were that despite both of my participants relating primarily to one or the other (code switching or masking), they both answered similarly to some of the questions. I first want to preface this by saying that one of my participants has code switched frequently throughout her life yet has little to no awareness of masking; while the other felt more like she masked more than she code switched. This is relevant because they have two different experiences with these concepts but answered similarly to more than one question. To one of my questions (“What situations do you think cause masking and/or code switching to more likely to occur?”), they both answered by explaining that they feel their school environment makes them feel more inclined to “fit in”, in turn causing them to result doing these things. So how is this relevant to my research question? To me, this means that the relation between the two could possibly be the “triggers” or maybe the intent behind doing them, whether it is deliberate or not. I felt that taking these results into consideration, there’s a lot of anxiety with “fitting in” at school, especially with minority students causing people to feel like they need to be less of themselves. With this information, I feel that teachers, being one of the first important educators in peoples’ lives, have the opportunity to make a change in their classrooms; even if they’re small changes. One change they could make is allowing students, whose primary language is one other than English or students who mainly use AAVE as their way of communication, to speak safely and comfortably in the classroom. This, instead of pushing “correct English” onto people, would allow them to have a connection to their roots while feeling accepted in a public setting. A pattern I found with my interview participants is that they repeatedly mentioned situations (specifically school) that they most often caught themselves code switching. One aspect of the relation between the two could deal with happenings in the school settings; the way minorities, both neurodivergent and not, are treated and expected to behave/communicate in these spaces. It could also relate to the amount of diversity in a school setting, where students may find themselves in multiple different social groups within one day. As a teacher seeing this information, opening up your classroom to different methods of teaching/learning could tremendously impact these students even outside of the classroom. Using the differences and similarities of these different communication methods, could allow a safer and more productive space for these students.
In conclusion, I feel as though the question I’m trying to answer is more complex and requires deeper studying rather than interviewing two of my close friends. As a result, I didn’t necessarily find the answer I was looking for, or in better words, the full answer. My interview was lacking in a fundamental way. The main thing I would change is that I would include a larger group of people with a wider range of diversity amongst that group. i.e., a more racial & ethnic, language, neurodiverse group. This would allow for a wider variety of answers, with more information to compare and contrast. I would also include questions about learning specifically and how more knowledge of these topics in learning environments would help students. I feel that with this sort of question, a lot of communication with different types of people is key. Doing research that is heavily focused on, first, the aspects in which code switching and masking are similar and different, and second, like I mentioned previously, using a bigger and more diverse group of people for said research.
Works Cited
Johnson, Lakeisha, et al. “The Effects of Dialect Awareness Instruction on Nonmainstream American English Speakers.” Reading & Writing, vol. 30, no. 9, Springer Netherlands, 2017, pp. 2009–38, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9764-y.
Kircher-Morris, Emily, and Sarah and Larry Nannery. “Say What? Neurodivergent Code Switching.” Neurodiversity Podcast, episode 87, 17 June 2021, https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/neurodiversity/say-what-neurodivergent-code-f29I5wPCAmK/
Nilep, C. “‘Code Switching’ in Sociocultural Linguistics”. Colorado Research in Linguistics, vol. 19, June 2006, doi:10.25810/hnq4-jv62.
