srakaego.blogg.se

Gumperz (1982) suggests the term “conversational codeswitching,” indicating that codeswitching is not merely characteristic of bilingualism, but specifically of face-to-face bilingual conversation.Ĭodeswitching has also been observed to occur in CMC, in both synchronous and asynchronous modes. Nonetheless, codeswitching is pervasive in oral, face-to-face bilingual situations the world over. Perhaps because of this stigma, it is seldom found in traditional forms of writing. This behavior is known as “codeswitching.” Bilinguals themselves tend to regard codeswitching as illegitimate, since it violates standards of correctness for both languages (Gumperz, 1982 Myers-Scotton, 1993a). Do these different communication modes differ in terms of how different languages are used in them? If so, can one or another type of CMC be said to be “more like conversation” on the basis of how different languages are used?Ī distinctive characteristic of bilingual face-to-face conversation is the use of two (or more) languages side-by-side, often with more than one language being used in a single sentence. While both modes support back-and-forth exchanges that participants call “conversations,” synchronous modes permit interactional behaviors that are more like face-to-face conversation (e.g., short turns, back-channeling see Cherny, 1999). Among text-only communications modes, an important dimension of variation is synchronicity-synchronous (“real time”) communications are those in which two or more people must be online at the same time in order to communicate, and asynchronous (“non real time”) communications take place when one's messages are stored for later retrieval by others (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). Rather, the Internet supports a diverse set of communications technologies, with different social and interactional properties. The answers to these questions are unlikely to be simple, because the Internet does not represent a single, homogeneous communications technology. Is bilingual interaction on the Internet similar to that of ordinary bilingual face-to-face conversation? To what extent does the medium of interaction affect the way that multilingual discourse unfolds? As of yet, however, little is known about language use in environments that are themselves multilingual, e.g., in which the participants use two or more languages. Will linguistic diversity on the Internet increase to match the diversity of its users? Or will users gravitate toward a few widely-used languages? The answers to these questions depend on the nature of multilingualism in specific online environments, and the dynamic social processes influencing it.

On a global scale, we would like to know what the consequences of such multilingualism will be. However, aside from the research just cited, relatively little is known about the linguistic and social reflexes of multilingualism on the Internet. In short, the Internet is a multilingual domain, and many users of the Internet are bilingual or multilingual (Danet & Herring, 2007 Paolillo 1996, 1999, 2007 Wright, 2004). With a little more effort, one can find other conversations where less well-known languages are used, such as Punjabi and Hindi. Thus it is not difficult to locate conversations on the Internet where Spanish, German, French, Portuguese, Chinese, and other major world languages are the primary language used. The diversity of user backgrounds can be seen not only in areas of interest, political views and place of origin it extends to native language as well. The Internet is commonly portrayed, both by advocates and in the popular media, as a place where people from diverse backgrounds can congregate to engage in discussion about a broad range of interests.