A Study of Intra-Sentential Code Mixing in a Multilingual Context

Abstract

This paper investigates the phenomena of wide spread borrowing and mixing of English words and phrases into Urdu also termed as Urlish Nadeem (2012) by the Multilingual educated community of Urban Pakistani Punjab. For this purpose, quantitative approach was preferred to exhibit the trend of Intra sentential code mixing by means of embedded grammatical and structural sequences of the spoken discourse occurring in a natural environment. Investigating the phenomenon understudy, a close - ended questionnaire was administered to 100 randomly selected students studying in public sector male colleges in Lahore (Pakistan). The data was analyzed quantitatively through different tables to show results. The study also intended to identify whether or not a significant difference existed between the Graduates (Arts and humanities) and Masters Degree Holders specifically English, regarding the usage of Intra - sentential code mixing ISCM woven within the hierarchy of ground structures of the Matrix language. During the analysis, data revealed that all the sentences have vivid similarities in their choices despite the mixing of two languages. The findings of this study reflected that there were definite similarities with special reference to the infusion of inbuilt grammatical structures in the discourse of common everyday conversations.

Headnote

Abstract

This paper investigates the phenomena of wide spread borrowing and mixing of English words and phrases into Urdu also termed as Urlish Nadeem (2012) by the Multilingual educated community of Urban Pakistani Punjab. For this purpose, quantitative approach was preferred to exhibit the trend of Intra sentential code mixing by means of embedded grammatical and structural sequences of the spoken discourse occurring in a natural environment. Investigating the phenomenon understudy, a close - ended questionnaire was administered to 100 randomly selected students studying in public sector male colleges in Lahore (Pakistan). The data was analyzed quantitatively through different tables to show results. The study also intended to identify whether or not a significant difference existed between the Graduates (Arts and humanities) and Masters Degree Holders specifically English, regarding the usage of Intra - sentential code mixing ISCM woven within the hierarchy of ground structures of the Matrix language. During the analysis, data revealed that all the sentences have vivid similarities in their choices despite the mixing of two languages. The findings of this study reflected that there were definite similarities with special reference to the infusion of inbuilt grammatical structures in the discourse of common everyday conversations.

Keywords: Matrix language, preferred choices, intra sentential mixing-switching.

Introduction

The modern, global era of the world today has bridged the barriers of linguistic complexities in bi-multilingual cultures and societies. It has reached a stage where the medium, approach and expression pave the way for the idea and scenario of rich linguistic resources and verbal genres. Due to this shift of social and interactional discourse patterns one may validate the fact that languages do not persist on the basis of limited and inflexible linguistic data rather it is the social attitude that highlights the acceptable norms of using the language Abbas Alam & Rana (2011)

In this perspective, it is quite considerable to assert that English as a second language has gained huge success with its current status of being a lingua franca across the globe. It is the part of those five languages of the world that claim highest number of speakers in the globe (Kachru, 1993). Chinese language however is the leading one.

In Pakistan, English as a second language not only dominates the society but it is also an emblem of modernity and standard. One of the major factors about English being widely accepted throughout the country is that Pakistan was a colonized state of British government and their influence on culture, trends, norms and values still reflects in Pakistani society particularly in its linguistic landscape. So Colonization is one of the pivotal factors that are responsible for the progress of bilingualism (Kachru, 1986; Bolton 2002). Thus English is ruling in the arena of knowledge and skill even now which ultimately leads to the extensive scope of language use pertaining the linguistic reality modulated by multidimensional purposes and aims reflective of social needs. The use of English within the domain of the classrooms has become indispensable, but amalgamation of English and mixing of its codes within the locally used languages like Urdu, is the natural emergence of language switch by the multilingual. This tradition of language alternation i.e. Urlish (mixing of English and Urdu languages) particularly, is in fashion in Pakistan and is also considered as the acceptable and successful mode of communication. Thus, speakers and more importantly the students use different code mixing patterns involving these languages in their discourse thus opening up new avenues for the researchers by means of interesting dimensions and varying insights.

Statement of the Problem

With special reference to Pakistani context, the present research attempted to investigate the nucleus of the code mixing phenomena in connection with the linguistic choices of the students who understand the English language and usually mix it with Urdu while having a conversation in their daily lives. The researchers analyzed the embedded structures of grammar which students have in their minds through their responses along with the linguistic choices

Purpose of the study

The Purpose of the present study was to:

* To investigate the trend of code - mixing within the matrix language by means of embedded structures of the grammars of URLISH. ( Urdu and English)

* To examine and compare the linguistic choices of graduate and post graduate students of Lahore

* To find out the tends of code - mixing choices among the students of multilingual educated community of Urban Punjab

* To understand the use of the ISPCM in the bilingual classroom

* To define the trends of ISPCM with reference to male and female bilingual teachers

* To understand the proclivity of ISPCS between EFL male and female teachers in the EFL classrooms; to explain how male and female teachers accomplish their interaction in the EFL classrooms by using ISPCS

* To define the ways in which EFL teachers achieve proper coordination of communication in the interaction of EFL classrooms.

Significance of the study

Code-mixing is very widespread all around the world in bilingual and multilingual countries like Pakistan. This study examines the trend of code mixing, showing that it acts as a catalyst in our society. This research also reflects that the composition and method of language is directly proportional to the use of language in society. The society in which people possess different dialects and idiolects and where hybrid code is a normal phenomenon .This research also reflects that the composition and method of language is directly proportional to the use of language in society. Thus the present study conveys that though code mixing is a widespread notion but some specific patterns and structures are imperative to follow. This study states that there are definitely some linguistic choices in the embedded structures of grammar in the minds of the people who are mixing L1 and L2. Hence the study open new avenues for the future researchers, who can further manipulate it, use it by making it their starting point. Moreover this study will be a baseline for people living in bilingual and multilingual community. It can further help to find out the social interactional patterns in the class rooms instructional practices as well.

Population of the study

An investigation was conducted in a particular speech community i.e., The Graduates (Arts and humanities) and Post Graduate (English) level studying in different public sector colleges of urban areas of Lahore ,Pakistan. For sampling 100 students of colleges which are offering M.A English (two years program) were selected and simple random sampling technique was used to select 100 students as a sample for the study.

Delimitations of the study

In order to narrow down the scope of the research from different colleges in Lahore only male colleges were randomly selected. Then to delimit the study from different disciplines present in colleges Graduates (Arts and humanities and Post Graduates (English) were considered for sample.

Research Questions

What are the embedded structures of grammars of different languages in the mind?

What are the differences of linguistic choices in minds with respect to qualification of the students in Lahore?

Literature Review

Operational definitions of code mixing

There are numeral definitions to explain the phenomenon of CM Romaine (1995) is of the view that because of so many terms which have been formulated such as code-mixing, switching, comparisons and borrowings all around, the path of research has become difficult. To sort out the issue about these terminologies language change can be bifurcated into two linguistic divisions known as Code mixing (CM) and code switching (CS). keeping in view this aspect the language change across the borders of the sentence is called code switching (CS) and contrary to it the change in language within the boundaries of the sentence is called code mixing (CM) (Grosjean, 1982; Torres, 1989).

To make vivid difference between CS and CM, Hamers and Blanc (2000) avow that code-mixing demands base language usage. They are of the view that code mixing can only be implanted in CS within one utterance.

Further division between code mixing and code switching is done by Hammers and Blanc (2000, p. 270) who asserted and recognized that "unlike borrowing, which is generally limited to lexical units which may be better assimilated or less well assimilated, code-mixing transfers elements of all linguistic levels and units ranging from a lexical item to a sentence, so that it is not always easy to distinguish code-mixing from code-switching".

Code mixing and Code switching continuance

Code-switching and code-mixing are the terms which are used in linguistic literature but the distinction between them is not so clear. Code-switching is usually considered at intersentential level whereas code-mixing at intra-sentential level.

Numan and Carter (2001) define code mixing as a phenomenon of switching from one language to another in the same discourse. According to Berthold, Mangubhai and Bartotowiez (1997) code mixing occurs when speakers shift from one language to another in the midst of their conversation. Wardhaugh (1992) states that code mixing takes places when during the conversation, speakers "use both languages together to the extent that they shift from one language to the other in the course of a single utterance."

Kumar (1986) proposes that differences are very subtle; therefore, to differentiate them has been a problematic phenomenon for linguists. But borrowing does not fall in this domain because it results in the integration of the linguistic items of the 'host' language which is not the case of code-mixing or code-switching. He defines code-mixing under the subsumed title of code-switching as "Code-switching", which is influenced by extra linguistic factors such as topic, interlocutors, setting, etc., is the alternate use of lexical items, phrases, clauses, and sentences from the non-native language (English) into the system of the native language (Hindi)."

Moreover Words in all languages have their specific semantic, phonological and semantic functions. Even if words are mixed or borrowed they have their individual value. Goke (1983) suggests that linguistic units from each language maintain, fairly reasonably, their separate identities, their phonological and grammatical characteristics. The construction of sentences may change syntactically and morphologically because of code-mixing but semantic functions remain same. The reason lies in capturing the same idea or proposition. A single proposition may be realized by different linguistic expressions whether those expressions belong to one language or the other. People living in multilingual contexts switch frequently but certainly their switching varies with respect to its frequency in different contexts. In this regard, addressee and setting is very important. This can also result in the form of lexical gap sometimes. According to Canfield (1980, p.34) bilinguals who use their two languages in separate contexts will have lexical gaps in their ability to use a language out of its usual context. Multilingual communities have different linguistic choices that they can use according to the requirements of the context. For the choice of code, definitely there are some social motivations that compel the interlocutors to use specific words. This phenomenon has been pointed out by Pfaff (1979) who is of the view that language mixing originates in response to social motivations and social factors cannot be ignored in any analysis. In this regard, long-term linguistic and social contact is very important. Some of the researchers have been placing emphasis upon the habitual language choice by the speakers. The reason is that some of the languages are associated with certain contexts. Mesthrie, Swann, Deumert & Leap (2001) use the term 'habitual' in this regard. They say that certain languages are associated with certain contexts. In addition to this, rational behavior behind linguistic choices cannot be ignored in any case. Speakers tend to use one lexical item than another. Myers-Scotten and Bolonyai (2001) propose, "We argue that talk follows principles of rational behavior". Conversation Analysis is also very helpful in the critical analysis of the conversation. For instance, it tells us about the turn taking, adjacency pairs and structural properties along with speakers' orientations to make conversational contributions. The actual purpose of developing Conversational Analysis was the analysis of the monolingual conversation. But now it has been used to interpret the analysis of the code-switching. While having conversations, perhaps interlocutors are unaware of the structural constraints that involve both semantic and syntactic. But these restrictions need to be analyzed to judge the grammaticality of the mixed sentences; especially if the actual utterances are changed with some other synonymous option. Di Sciullo, Muysken and Singh (1986) argue that the process of code-mixing is constrained by the government relation that holds between the constituents of a sentence.

Besides this, the phenomenon of code-mixing also concerned with social class and caste. However, social class and caste are different to each other. Caste is measured at micro level whereas social class or social identity is taken at broader level. Miriam Meyerhof (2006) suggests that in a caste system, the caste you are born into determines your position within the larger social order for your whole life. The question of identity is also related to social class and caste system and code-mixing shows it clearly.

The same scenario is correlated with the Pakistani context, in which the class system is the soul of the society. Here he base language, Urdu which is a language having the genes of borrowing in its roots, as when originated it was a blend of Turkish, Hindko, Persian, Arabic and other languages thus resenting the vivid example of different casts of society. After British intrusion and colonization in sub continent Urdu took many words from English which are known and used commonly at every social level. Most common of them are 'sorry" and "Thank you". In the due course of time these words are part of Urdu language. After amalgamation the words accepted by community are also shaped up according to the morphology and phonology of the specific language. Gulzar (2010) says that code mixing can coup for the insufficiency of capability i.e. the lexical unit but it may spread the message of deficiency in the base language.

So intra sentential code mixing can be defined as the use of two or more than two codes in a single utterances or a sentence, alternatively.

Research Methodology

In order to ascertain the point of views quantitative methodology was used for the current study. According to Kumar (2005) this method is most suitable for large well designed and well administered surveys using properly constructed and worded questionnaire.

Here in the specific study, firstly a conversation was recorded between two participants who are not the native speakers of English. This recording was done in a natural environment to get actual and natural utterances and the participants were ignorant of the recording. Two participants' recording was performed to get qualitative data for transcription as it was done in a natural environment and involvement of only two participants made the conversation free of chopping, cutting, extra pauses, interruptions and chaos etc. Then the sentences in the conversation were transcribed (Appendix A)

Then from the complete transcription some sentences were randomly selected to form the questionnaire which was knitted on a structured pattern derived from a pre selected population in order to acquire authentic information on particular issues pertinent to this study. According to K. Popper (2004) questionnaire is quite practical and it can help the researcher to collect a huge ratio of information from community in shorter span of time.

The questionnaire is quite different from normal questionnaires. It comprises of ten sentences in total which was taken from the recorded conversation. First option (i.e. a) of every question in the questionnaire is the actual and original utterance. However the next options in every question (i.e. b, c, d) is the modified version of actual utterance (i.e. a) providing the respondents with different linguistic choices keeping in view the grammatical and matrix perspective. Doing this it was easy to check the preferred choice of the respondents.

Then a questionnaire was distributed equally amongst the students of both Graduates (Arts and humanities) and Post Graduates (M.A English) to get the responses.

Data collection strategies

As told earlier the researchers used questionnaire to collect data and the procedure of collection of data took more than a month. Furthermore, the researchers gathered the point of view of the respondents from different male colleges situated in diverse regions of Lahore and this helped in setting the broader picture of this research by means of representative sampling.

Data Analysis

The data collected through questionnaire was analyzed and tabulated to show the result through percentage to make it the part of the findings. The data is interpreted in three phases. The first phase is about the matrix language. In this phase the respondents were asked to give their responses about the belonging of these sentences i.e. English and Urdu. The second phase comprises of linguistic choices from all the respondents where preferred choice response has been monitored and explained through table.

The third phase is quite different from previous two phases. In this phase respondents have given their verdict about the grammaticality of the sentences. Further, a comparison of General Category of student Graduates (arts and humanities) to a specific category (Masters in English) has also been drawn. In the light of all fore mentioned phases results has been drawn and conclusions are derived.

Following is the detail analysis of the responses recorded by the respondents

Phase 1

First phase reflects the response about the matrix language. As previously mentioned, hundred people are the respondents of this questionnaire. The overall result of all the first options (i.e. a) of all the questions in questionnaire (which are actual utterances of recording) is shown in the following Table.

The above table 1 shows the overall opinion of the people about the matrix of the first option (i.e. a) of all the sentences. An individual response of every single question is present in the table. The overall result of table 1 shows that 21% of the people think that these sentences are of English language whereas 79% are of the view that these sentences are of Urdu language. If we look at table 1 there are some questions in which the ratio of ownership towards English is above 30% but the table clearly reflects that Urdu has dominated the ownership of the sentences in each question i.e. the ratio in each question is not less than 60% which shows great inclination of the respondents towards Urdu. If we look at questions 5.a) and 7.a) here the ownership ratio of English is 40% but apart from that it is less than 40% in all questions.

Discussion and implications

The table 1 clearly reflects that there is a huge ratio of people who think that these sentences belong to Urdu language and very few are of the view that these sentences belong to English language. During the collection of data it was felt by the researchers that students have clear idea about the ownership of all the sentences presented to them. No respondent was confused about giving the opinion. All the respondents gave their opinion in a clear manner

Critical analysis of the data also shows that majority of the students were in favour of Urdu language which relates the fact that even English language is a lingu franca and its amalgamation is accepted into Urdu yet English is unable to change the ownership of Urdu till date, it also narrates the fact that mixing L2 into L1 cannot change the ownership of the base language as happened in this case where 79% people strongly believe that Urdu takes the ownership of these sentences and very few people 21% are of the view that these sentences are from English language.

Phase 2

The next tables are about the linguistic choices and the preferred choice of the respondents. These tables reflect that out of all the options given in each of the questions in the questionnaire (i.e. a, b, c, d) which choice is the most preferred choice of the respondents and what is their least preferred. In the below mentioned table each option of every questions is described separately

Table 2 shows the responses about option 'A' of all the questions. In this table the preferred choice and priority of placing the sentence of the respondents is mentioned

Diverse responses are there in the table 2 option i.e. 1. a) in the table shows that there are 60 people who will use the 1st sentence as their top priority as 1st preferred choice (at No. 1). 40 people are of the view that they will place the sentence (at No. 2) and it is their second best choice. There is no one to use the same sentence at number 3 and 4. Likewise every option in the table is discussed separately

Now, let's randomly take the example of sentence number 7.a) where 80 people say that they will use that sentence as their top priority, as 1st preferred choice (at No. 1), 10 persons say that they will use the same sentence as their second best priority at number 2, and 10 persons at number say that they will use and place this sentence as their 3rd best option (at No. 3). All the categories show the division of date in the same manner.

In the end of the above table 2, the overall percentage of option 'A' of all the questions is discussed. The collective result shows that 70% respondents will use option 'A' of all the questions as their best and preferred choice. 25% will use the same sentence as their 2nd best choice and only 5% will use it as their 3rd best and preferred choice i.e. they will place it at number 3.

Discussion and Implications

The above table 2 represents the data on the linguistic choices and the placement of sentences as most or least preferred choice. In this table all option 'A' of all questions from questionnaire has been discussed and presented. The overall results show that the sentence 'A' is the most preferred choice of the respondents as majority has made this option as their most preferred choice. In every option (a) of every question the ratio is over 60% which show marked difference as compared to the other preferred choices ratio. Only question 10(a) is a difference in this whole table where only 30 respondents are making the sentence as their most preferred choice otherwise it is just one sided story. The overall analysis of option 'A' of all question presented in the table shows that people are clearly in favour of making option 'A' as their top choice.

This table 3 is quite similar to graph 'A'. In this table sentence 'B' of all the questions has been analyzed. For instance, sentence number (1.b) shows that no person will use this option as their preferred choice and even as their 2nd best choice. 70 people say that they will use the sentence as their 3rd preferred option means they will place it (at No. 3) and 30 people will use the same sentence as their 4th best option means (at No. 4).

If we randomly look at (10.b) from the table we see that there are 30 respondents who make this sentence as their most preferred choice and they will place it at (No. 1). 10 people takes it as their 2nd best option means they will place it at (No. 2) whereas 60 respondents makes it as their 3rd best and preferred choice and nobody makes it as their 4th best choice

Similarly all the option (b) of all the questions are discussed in tabulated form separately.

Discussion and implications

The overall result of all the option (B) of all questions shows that 16% respondents will use sentence 'B' as their most preferred choice (at No. 1). 41% respondents will use it at as their 2nd best choice means they will place it at (at No. 2). 40% respondents will place it at (No. 3) as it is their 3rd best option and only 3% will place it at (No. 4) as it is their 4th best option. If we look at table 3 we see that there are few people who are willing to use this sentence as their most preferred choice i.e. total 16% respondents have made this as their top choice.

Almost equal ratio of the respondents have shown their agreement of using option 'B' all sentences as their second and third choice having the percentage of 41 and 40 respectively. That clearly shows that option 'B' of all sentences is not the most preferred choice of the respondents

This table 4 shows the response of the respondents about the usage of the sentence 'C' of all the questions keeping in view the preferred responses of the respondents. In sentence (1.c) there are 10 respondents who say that they will place it at (no1) as their most preferred choice. 30 respondents are of the view that it is their 2nd best preferred choice and there are 30 respondents who say that it is their 3rd most preferred choice and nobody wants to have it as their 4th preferred choice

Similarly, sentence number (9.c) shows that 30 people are of the view that they will use this as 3rd best choice and place it at (No 3) whereas 70 say claims this as their 3rd most preferred choice and that they will use the same sentence at (No 3) but there is no one who wants to have this sentence as their most preferred choice (No1) or least preferred choice placing it at (No 4.

Then in the end the overall percentage is mentioned to explain he clear picture. The overall percentage of all the questions exhibit that maximum people are opting the same utterance as used by the interlocutors of recording.

Discussion and implications

Table 4 is showing the response about the preference of respondents. This is about option 'C' of all the questions. The result in the table is clearly showing that option 'C' present in the entire question is not the most liked choice of the respondents. The overall ratio of preference is that high ratio of the respondents are placing this option as their third most preferred choice. Only 11% respondents made it as their top choice, 28% have made it as their second most preferred choice and 46% have made it as their third most preferred choice , the figures clearly suggests that majority is placing this option at their third most preferred choice

This table 5 is similar to the aforementioned tables. This table is about option 'D' of all the questions. In sentence (1.d) there are 10 respondents who say that they will place it at (nol) as their most preferred choice. 40 respondents are of the view that it is their 2nd best preferred choice and 50 respondents say that it is their 3rd most preferred choice with no one ready to use it as their 4th preferred choice

Viewing randomly, sentence number (5.d) shows that 20 respondents are of the view that they will use this as their most preferred choice whereas 30 say that it is 2nd most preferred choice and 50 respondents are of the view that this option is their 3rd most preferred choice but there is no one who wants to have this sentence as their most preferred choice (No. 1) from question 6or least preferred choice placing it at (No. 4. The major difference in this table as compared to others is that in question 6,7,8,9 and 10 we find some responses of the respondents as their lest preferred choice i.e. they have placed it as no (4)

Discussion and implications

Table 5 is showing the response about the preference of respondents. This is about option 'D' of all the questions. The result in the table is clearly showing that option 'D' present in the entire question is not the most preferred choice of the respondents. The overall ratio presented in the graph suggests that there are 13% people who are making this as their most preferred choice. The major focus however is as second most and third most preferred choice is that high ratio of the respondents are placing this option as their third most preferred choice. Only 11% respondents made it as their top choice, 28% have made it as their second most preferred choice and 46% have made it as their third most preferred choice , the figures clearly suggests that majority is placing this option at their third most preferred choice with the ratios of 33 and 47 respectively. One clear difference in option 'D' of all the sentences table is that here 7% people responded that they will use this option as their least preferred choice which has not been done in any other table or option.

Phase 3

Comparison of M.A. English respondents with General Group

Phase 3 represents the comparison of the respondents of of General Category of student (arts and humanities) to a specific category (Masters in English). Same questions have been used to know the grammaticality of the sentences that whether the respondents think the sentence is grammatical or non grammatical. Respondents belonging to both categories have given their responses. Here in this phase there is a separate table for each the options (i.e. a, b, c, d).

Firstly, let's look at the system of analysis and the way data has been represented in the tables 6 and 7. In sentence 'A' of M.A. English Group 100 people are giving their responses. They are giving their opinion about the grammatically of the sentences. For instance in sentence (1.a) 90 respondents believe that the sentence is grammatical and 10 say that it is ungrammatical. Now let us randomly check (5. a) it shows that 80 respondents are of the opinion that sentence is grammatical whereas 20 say that that sentence is ungrammatical. Similarly in General group the over all response shows that the sentences are grammatical. If we look at the options (1.a) (4.a) and (8.a) randomly we see that the ratio about grammaticality is 90 100 and 90 respectively which is indeed a high one. Every option in the table is presented in the same manner.

Discussion and implications

The comparison of both the tables also reflects the overall percentage of M.A. English Group and General Group shows some similarities. Looking separately at the table of M.A English only question (3.a) and (5.a) possess percentage of 20.apart from that the all the questions carry the percentage of 50 or above. Similarly, in the category of General Group question (3.a) and (10.a) are having 30 respondents apart from that all questions percentages are above 80.Overall 81% of General Group and 75% in M.A. English group believe that these sentences are grammatical which means they are very close to each other which clearly states that most of the people belonging to both categories deem every first option of every question grammatical. However only 19% in General Group and 25% in M.A. English Group think that these sentences as ungrammatical. Overall results clearly suggest that respondents from both the groups presented in both the tables take these sentences as grammatical.

This table is about the responses of option 'B' of all questions. Two separate tables are showing the responses of both general and M.A English group responses. For instance, taking randomly sentence (2.b) from M.A English table we see that 20 respondents say that this sentence is grammatical and 80 respondents believe that it is ungrammatical. Similarly sentence (6.b) from English Group also says that 20 people think that sentence is grammatical whereas 80 are of the view that that sentence is ungrammatical.

If we take random sentences from General group we see that in sentence (3.b) 70 respondents believe that the sentence is grammatical. On the contrary sentence (4, 6, 7, and 9) shows that nobody is willing to accept these sentences as grammatical and the ratio is 0. All the sentences in both group has been presented and tabulated in this manner

Discussion and implications

In these tables we see different responses to questions. In M.A. English group we see high ratio taking these sentences as grammatical (i.e. sentence (3.b) and sentence (10.b) having the ratio 70 and 80 respectively, In most sentences of M.A English group we see high ratio of respondents saying these sentences as ungrammatical.

Now let us start comparing both the tables. If we randomly compare option (6.b) of M.A English group with (6.b) with General Group we observe that in M.A English group sentence number (6.b) states that 20 people out of hundred think take this as grammatical whereas 80 are of the view that that sentence is ungrammatical on However in 96.b) general group 100respondents say that that sentence is ungrammatical and there is no one who says that that sentence is grammatical. The overall percentage of both groups shows similarity of responses. For instance, 70 % in English group think that option 'B' of all the questions are ungrammatical and 30% believe that these are grammatical however 79% General Group respondents also regard these sentences as ungrammatical and only21% respondents claim that these are grammatical. Here we vividly see that a large number of respondents from both groups are of the view that these sentences are ungrammatical.

These tables are about all the option 'C' of all the questions. One represents M.A English and one represents Graduates of (Arts and Humanities).

If we look at option (2.c) in M.A. English group we see that only 10 respondents say that the sentence is grammatical whereas 90 respondents are of the view that the sentence is ungrammatical. Similarly if we look at sentence (7.c) M.A. English group 20 respondents say that the sentence is grammatical and 80 says it is ungrammatical. Each question in the table is presented in this manner

In General Group if we take sentence (1.c) we see that 60 respondent say that the sentence is grammatical and 40 say that it is ungrammatical. If we randomly view question (4.c) general group only 10 respondents say that the sentence is grammatical and 90 say that it is ungrammatical. Each question in general group is presented independently in the table

Discussion and implications

Table 10 and 11 are representing the data of option 'C' of all questions. Minutely looking at table them 10 we see that majority of the respondents in M.A. English group are of the view that sentences in option 'C' are ungrammatical. If we look at sentences (1.c, 3.c, 5.c, 7, c and 9.c) randomly we observe that the ratio of taking these sentences as grammatical is 30,0,10, 20 and 10 which is on the lower side, if we compare the same sentences (1.c, 3.c, 5.c, 7, c and 9.c) in table 11 of General group we observe that the ratio of taking these sentences as grammatical is 60, 0, 0,50,0.

The overall percentage of M.A. English and general group has given at the end of each table. It states that option 'C' of all the questions belonging to M.A. English group shows that 19% respondent think that these sentences are grammatical and 81% regard them as ungrammatical.

However in General Group 22% respondents think that option 'C' of all questions is grammatical and 78% think it as ungrammatical. The analysis of both the table shows that majority of the respondents in both are taking these sentences as ungrammatical as the ratio of ungrammatical sentences is more than 60% in both. The overall figures clearly suggest that a large percentage of respondents from both groups take these sentences as ungrammatical.

The above tables 11 and 12 are presented just like the other tables. In this table responses about the grammatically of Option 'D' of all the questions is presented.

If we look at different questions in table 11 belonging to M.A English group we see different responses to each question for example in question (1.d) 60 respondents say that the sentence is grammatical and 40 say that it is ungrammatical. But we look at question (4.d) in the same table we see 40 respondents believe that the sentence is grammatical and 60 say that it is ungrammatical. All the other questions in the table are presented in the same manner.

If we look at different questions in table 12 belonging to General group again the responses are not similar in every question if we randomly look at (2.d,) 10 respondents think that the sentence is grammatical and 90 believe that it is ungrammatical. Whereas in sentence (8.d0 40 respondents believe that the sentence is grammatical and 60 say that it is ungrammatical. All the questions in table 12 are presented independently according to the responses from the respondents

Discussion and implications

Looking at both tables 11 and 12 one common thing is that the overall inclination of the respondents from both the groups is towards ungrammatical aspect of these sentences.

If we compare both the tables we see that in table 11 M.A English group the sentence (2.d, 4, d, 6, d, and 8,d) the ratio about grammaticality of these sentences is 20, 20, 0, 30. Looking at the same sentence in general group i.e. (2.d, 4, d, 6, d, and 8, d) the ratio about grammaticality is 10,10,10,40. This shows that there is not much difference in the opinion of the respondents belonging to both the groups

The overall percentage of option 'D' of all questions belonging to M.A English group is that 31% respondents say that they are grammatical sentences and 69% say that it is ungrammatical. Whereas the overall percentage of General group is not much different where 29% say that it is grammatical and 71% say it is ungrammatical. The overall responses clearly suggests that majority of the population is taking these sentences as ungrammatical

Conclusion

All the aforementioned analysis through the tables brings into light clear findings and conclusion. The overall analysis of the data shows that the structure of a language and the way it is used in the society has similarities among people. It was observed that though URLISH (Urdu and English) mixing is a common phenomenon but the belonging of these sentences is still with base language which highlights the fact that base language do absorb and add words in it but the change in family of language is not possible. One cannot deny with the utility of mixing of English into Urdu in interactive discourse but it cannot change the belonging of the languages. The researchers also viewed that when it comes to linguistic choices and describing about most preferred choice the respondents in all the categories of all the sentences show vivid similarities in all the tables. Some of them have gone on the contrary but their figure is very small as compared to those of agreeing. Therefore, it has been found that languages are mixed but choices remain same. One language does add words from other language but the choices of addition has to do with the Therefore, the present paper explored the trend of incorporating the embedded structures of the grammars of Urlish in the matrix language interchangeably along with the adaptation of multiplicity of varying linguistic choices with respect to qualification Gulzar M.A (2010)

The alternate use of these languages has become a routine discourse pattern of the multilingual community as compared to that of uneducated one

Then it was also monitored that the manner in which English language is mixed in Urdu has specific patterns with respect to its use in the matrix language by means of embedded structures of grammar as in phases 3 option (a) there was a huge ratio of respondents who believe that these sentences are grammatical. Apart from option (a) all the other options (b, c, d) possess low ratio about the grammaticality of the sentences. The low percentage in all the other options clearly suggests that respondents are clear about the structures of grammar they have in their minds and they have responded accordingly. Even the comparison between Graduates (arts and humanities) and M.A. English is showing similar responses about grammaticality of the sentences of all options. This narrates the fact that even the difference in Education does not completely affect the embedded structures of grammar in mind.

In a nutshell, different respondents gave their responses regarding the choices, grammaticality and matrix language but overall analysis shows that there are definite similarities in their opinions.

The researchers have found that there is great room for research in area of mixing of English in Urdu. As code mixing is a renowned and common phenomenon in Pakistan but it was also found out that the even the inclusion is on the higher side but it is not affecting the belonging of the sentences to English. Increase in mixing of English is making code mixing a common tool but the users are smart enough to know the grammaticality of the sentences and also their most preferred choice.

References

References

* Journal of Research and Reflections in Education December 2012, Vol.6, No.2, pp154 -162

* Berthold, M. F. Mangubhai, and Batorowicz, K. (1997) Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Study Book. University of Southern Queensland: Toowoomba, QLD.

* Canfield, K. (1980). A Note on Navajo-English Code-Mixing. The Trustees of Indiana University, Anthropological Linguistics, Vol.22

* Carole, M-S., Bolonyai A. (1991)., Calculating speakers: Code Switching in a rational choice model. ( Reviewed work) Language in Society, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 1-28

* Di Sciullo, A.-M.,P. Muyske& R. Sing (1986). Government and Code-mixing. Journal of Linguistics 22 (1986), 1-24

* Goke-P. (1983). Code-Mixing among Yoruba-English Bilinguals. TheTrustees of Indiana University, Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 25 http://www.jstor.org/stable/30028409

* Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

* Grosjean, F., & Soares, C. (1984). Bilinguals in a monolingual and a bilingual speech mode: The effect on lexical access, Memory and Cognition 12, pp. 380- 386

* Gulzar, M.A. (2010). Code-Switching: Awareness about Its Utility in EFL/ESL Classroom Discourse, Bulletin of Education and Research, Vol.32 No.2, pp 1-14, Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Pakistan

* Hamers, F.J., & Blanc, A.H.M.(1989). Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge University Press.

* Kumar, A. (1986). Certain Aspects of Forms and Functions of Hindi-English Code-Mixing. The Trustees of Indiana University, Anthropological Linguistics, Vol.28 http://www.jstor.org/ stable/30028409

* Kumar, Ranjeet, 2005, Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide forBeginners,(2nd.ed.), Singapore, Pearson Education.

* K.Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), reprinted (2004) by Routledge, Taylor and Francis http://www.jstor.org/stable/30028409

* Meshthrie, R., Swann J., Deumert A., & Leap L., (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.

* Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Dueling languages: Grammatical Structure in Code switching. Oxford: Clarendon Myers-Scotton, C., & Bolonyai, A. (2001). Calculating Speakers: Codeswitching in a Rational Choice Model. Language in Society, 30(1), 1-28.

* Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. Routledge Press New York.

* Numan, D. and Carter, D. 2001. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

* Pfaff, W. (1979). Constraints on Language Mixing: Intra-sentential Code-Switching and Borrowing in Spanish/English., Language, Vol. 55.-Linguistic Society of America, http:// www.jstor.org/sgtable/412586

* Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. USA: Black Well Publisher. Wardhaugh, R. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992

(Appendix B)

Total number of sentences: 65

No. of Switched sentences: 5

No. of un-switched sentences: 40

Mixed sentences: 26

Unmixed sentences: 14

Duration of female Transcription no 1 5 minutes

Duration of male transcription: 5 minutes

Transcription of the Recording

Profile

(1) Mahnoor Baloch (age: 13) Mother Tongue: Urdu (School, The Punjab School, Lahore) Father name: Amanat Ali Baloch (Professional, Business man)

(2) Mukashfa Shaukat (age: 16) Mother tongue: Punjabi (School, The Punjab School, Lahore) Father name: Ch. Shaukat Ali (Profession, Bank Manager)

Conversation

* Mahnoor: They are forcing. Nai to Fsckarni, jo marzikar le. This is not the thing. If you want to do F.A., you have to do. This is your right.

* Mukashfa: Punjab School ka system aisa hay k kuch teachers jo hain wo bara acha parhaati hain aur kuch hoti hain jinko bus yehhota hay k discipline ho aur bus yehi ho. Un ko bus in cheezoun ko emphasize karna aata hay. Aur students jo hoti hain wo cooperative bhi hain. AurEpecially jo school ka nizam hay us main yeh bilkul nahiachalagta k harwaqt study, study, study. Is main koi fun bhihonachahiay, thoray function honaychaian. Is main koi fun fair nahi hota, fun fair nahihota. Jistarhaaam routine main har school main fun fair waghaira hota hay. Hamaray school main nahihota. Lakin is dafah to trips bhi postpone kardiay gay hain. To lakin bachoun k liay is tarhaki activities honi chahiay. To...

* Mahnoor: This is the point na! This is the point k aap sirf yeh daikhain k larkay haijagha ja saktay hain. Un ko har cheez ki azadi hay.Larkiaoun ko hi Azadinahi hot. To student trips k zriay say yaaurkisichakar say apni enjoyment ka izharkar..

* Mukashfa: To confidence develop hota hay..

* Mahnoor: Develop karta hay.... Lakin yahan Punjab School main yehdaikhajata hay k all time studies.... number matter. Yeh number matric k aap board k paper main. Agar aik ko kitab khol di gaie hay to number bhi to ziadaayien gay na.

* Mukashfah: Especially agar aap co-education ko.. Us k baray main discuss karain. to us main yeh. us k baray main kafi jo k hay wo negative sochajata hay aurkahinpe is ko positive liajata hay. Lakin.. is k positive effects bhihain negative bhilakin agar positive sochajaye to phir is k is kisim ka koi nuqsaan waghaira .. koi cheeznahihoti. To is tarahkicheezoun k liaybhi in kokehnachahiay..

* Mahnoor: Even I think k hamaray muashray ko itna ziada conjusted kardiagia hay k hamari soch aik jagha tak mehdood ho karrehgie hay. European countries, American countries main daikhajaye to aiwanahi hay. Wahan co-education hay aur I think k jab aagay ja k bhiaap nay BSc yaMsc y Medical main coeducation. to ab kioundarrahayhain.

* Mukashafa: Han, Jo pehlay hi jo k itna band band ho k raha hay to wo aikdum say jab coeducation main jayega to us k andaritna confidence nahihoga. To wo nahiapnayaapko.. Karsakayga ....

* Mahnoor: Especailly girls feel hesitation about saying anything ....

* Mukashfa: In fron of boys.

* Mahnoor: In front of boys. Even they are sitting in coeducation ....

* Mukashfa: For example, abhi hum Math ki class le rahayth to main us main question nahi pooch pa rahithik..main.. Sir say kistarha question poochoun k boys baithayhuayhain. To Us k liay hum nay kaha k wo tum poochu. kioukaypoochana to hay is wajah say kioukayhamrikhudkibhi jo activitie jo hain un main farqparta hay.

* Mahnoor: I think k bachay ka knowledge itnahonachahiay. agar aik bacha parhta ho aur us k number nahiaatay to us main shyad koi na koi difference ho gia ho ga. To ghaltishaydyeh hay k wo paper k alfaazkosamjhnahi pa raha. Lakin agar yehmaanliajaye k lo g tum.wo bacha beshakpooraysaalparha hay lakin agar number kamnahi aye to us ko blame karkar k itna wo.us ka mind jo hay na wo con..kiakahi gay k wo struck off kardiajayega.Aur wo negative hi sochtarahayga k main hi ghalthoun. Main nay hi ghaltkia hay.

* Mukashfa: Bus is tarah to hot hay aur.

* Mahnoor: You know what I think. The foreign countries they are giving so many of.fulfilling the environment. They have the abilities and children have the freedom whatever they want. They live alone and they can. They do whatever they want.

* Mukashfa: Some parents do not allow the children to live alone but it also has some positive effects and some negative but.

* Mahnoor: You know what. May cousin has recently passed exam and she received a call from Kohat and then? What happened. kiahua? Kioukay mama papa nay hi kaha hay k nai g aapnahi ja saktainkioukayaaplarkihain. Wahan hamarah koi rishtaydarnahirehtaaap ja nahisaktain. She had missed the biggest opportunity of her life. Yehsirf is muashraykighutankiwajah say? Kia hum kuchnahikarsaktay? Rataylagwalagwa k. What is this? Matric main bhirattalization hay. Teacher s khudkehtihain. Is korattalga lo.

* Mukashfa: Han is korattalaga lo. Agar samjhnae aye to..

* Mahnoor: App nay.. Yeh formula hay. Is kozroorat hi nahiyaadkarnayki. Jo jaisa hay wo waisa hi hota hay. Aaprattalaga lain.. Beta yehkar lain wo kar lain yehkar lain wo kar lain aurisichakkar main bus kamkhtam.

Transcription along with Tagging

Profile

(1) Mahnoor Baloch (age: 13) Mother Tongue: Urdu (School, The Punjab School, Lahore) Father name: Amanat Ali Baloch (Professional, Business man)

(2) Mukashfa Shaukat (age: 16) Mother tongue: Punjabi (School, The Punjab School, Lahore) Father name: Ch. Shaukat Ali (Profession, Bank Manager)

Conversation

Mahnoor: S i I Pro. They I vp Ihv arellmn forcing!}. Nai to Fsckami. jo marzikar le. S i I Pro. ThislImv is] not Γ art thelInp In thingl}. If you want to do F.A.. you have to do. Upro.Thisirmv isi your INPIN rightl}.

Mukashfa:siINP IN PunjablI N Schooll lka In systeml aisa Tv hayl k kuch INP IN teachersl jo hain I pro. Wol TINT baral acha TV parhaatihainlICON aurl kuchhotihainjinko bus yehhota hay k INP INdisciplinel ho aur bus yehi ho. (1)SU Un ko bus in cheezounko VPIV emphasize karna laata hayl}.(2) Si ICON AurlINP studentsl jo IV hotihainl I Pro wol I ADJ cooperativel bhihain. ICON AurlI ADV EpeciallvlΓCON jolINP school ka nizaml hay I PRO usl main I PRO yehl bilkulnahiachalagta k harwaqtINP IN studly. study. study. Is main koi fun bhihonachahiay. thoray function honaychahian. Is main koi fun fair nahihota. fun fair nahihota.(3)S {JistarhaIAP aam routinel main har school main IAP fun fairl waghaira IV hota hayl} .Hamaray school main nahihota. (4) SICON Lakinl is dafah to IN tripsl bhiIVP IV postpone kardiavl gay hain. (5) S ¡ICON lakinlIN bachounl k liay is tarhaki I NP IN activitiesl I Vhonichahiayl. To...

Mahnoor: This is the point na! This is the point k aapsirfyehdaikhain k larkayhaijagha ja saktayhain. Un koharcheezkiazadi hay.Larkiaoun ko hi Azadinahihoti. (6)S i I CON Tol INP IN studentlINP IN tripslIPP k zriay sayl ya I CON aurl kisi INP chakarl say apni IN enjoyment l ka izhar IV karl.

Mukashfa: To confidence develop karta hay..

Mahnoor: Develop karta hay.Lakinyahan Punjab School main yehdaikhajata hay k all time studies.number matter. Yeh number matric k aap board k paper main. Agar aikkokitabkhol di gaie hay to number bhi to ziadaayien gay na.

Mukashfah: Especially agar aap co-education ko.... Us k baray main discuss karain. to us main yeh. us k baray main kafi jo k hay wo negative sochajata hay aurkahinpe is ko positive liajata hay. Lakin.. is k positive effects bhihain negative bhilakin agar positive sochajaye to phir is k is kisim ka koi nuqsaan waghaira .. koi cheez nahi hoti. To is tarah ki cheezoun k liaybhi in ko kehna chahiay.. Mahnoor:(7) S i I ADV Even 11 Pro HI V think lk hamaray muashray koľ ADV itna ziadalI V conjustedkardiagial hay k hamari soch aik jagh atak IADJ mehdoodl ho karrehgie hay. European countries. American countries main daikhajaye to aiwanahi hay. Wahan co-education hay aur I think k jab aagay ja k bhiaap nay BSc yaMsc y Medical main coeducation. to ab kioundarrahayhain. Mukashafa: Han. Jo pehlay hi jo k itna band band ho k raha hay to wo aikdum say jab coeducation main jayega to us k andaritna confidence nahihoga. To wo nahiapnayaapko.... Karsakayga....

Mahnoor: Especailly girls feel hesitation about saying anything.

Mukashfa: In fron of boys.

Mahnoor: In front of boys. Even they are sitting in coeducation.

Mukashfa: For example. abhi hum Math ki class le rahaythay to main us main question nahi pooch pa rahithik..main.. Sir say kistarha question poochoun k boys baithayhuayhain. To Us k liay hum nay kaha k wo tum poochu. kioukaypoochana to hay is wajah say kioukayhamrikhudkibhi jo activitie jo hain un main farqparta hay.

MahnoorfflSIPro IlIV think kINP bachay ka knowledgel itna IV honachahiayl. agar aik bacha parhta ho aur us k number nahiaatay to us main shyad koi na koi difference ho gia ho ga. To ghaltishaydyeh hay k wo paper k alfaazkosamjhnahi pa raha. Lakin agar yehmaanliajaye k lo g tum.wo bacha beshakpooraysaalparha hay lakin agar number kamnahi aye to us ko blame karkar k itna wo.(8) us ka mind jo hay na wo con. .kiakahain gay k wo struck off kardiajayega.Aur wo negative hi sochtarahayga k main hi ghalthoun. Main nay hi ghaltkia hay.

Mukashfa: Bus is tarah to hot hay aur.

Mahnoor: You know what I think. The foreign countries. they are giving so many of .. fulfilling the environment. They have the abilities and children have the freedom whatever they want. They live alone and they can. They do whatever they want.

Mukashfa: Some parents do not allow the children to live alone but it also has some positive effects and some negative but..

Mahnoor: You know what. My cousin has recently passed exam and she received a call from Kohat and then? What happened.. kiahua? Kioukay mama papa nay hi kaha hay k nai g aapnahi ja saktainkioukayaaplarkihain. Wahanhamarah koi rishtaydamahirehtaaap ja nahisaktain. She had missed the biggest opportunity of her life. Yehsirf is muashraykighutankiwajah say? Kia hum kuchnahikarsaktay? Rataylagwalagwa k. What is this? (9) SÍIN Matrici main bhi INPIN rattalization TV havi. (10) SilNP IN Teachers! I Pro khud! Ikehti V haini. Is korattalga lo...

Mukashfa: Han is korattalaga lo. Agar samjhnae aye to..

Mahnoor: App nay.. Yeh formula hay. Is kozroorat hi nahiyaadkarnayki. Jo jaisa hay wo waisa hi hota hay. Aaprattalaga lain.. Beta yehkar lain wo kar lain, yehkar lain wo kar lain aurisichakkar main bus kamkhtam.