Content area
Full Text
This article examines the potential reasons for code-switching in a formal religious speech. The findings are based on the framework of Markedness Model by Carol Myers-Scotton (1993) and Politeness Theory by Brown and Levinson (1978). The findings have shown that inter-sentential and intra-sentential code-switching are the only types of code-switching to dominate in most parts of that speech. It also has demonstrated that the Imam was conscious of his switching and he does not lack competence in English. He makes marked choices throughout the Khuttba to purposefully establish an intimate negotiation between the audience and him. Moreover, he uses code-switching as a means to stress specific points as well as to increase solidarity and membership. Furthermore, he employs code-switching to either translate directly or to express some expressions that do not exist in English as well as to maintain the correct pronunciation of Islamic or Quranic expressions.
Keywords: code-switching, Imam, Khuttba, intra-sentential, inter-sentential, Markedness Model, Politeness Theory.
1. Definition of Code-Switching
A myriad of definitions have been put forward by many linguistic scholars to give certain conceptualizations about code-switching. As defined by Weinreich (1953), code-switching is "the practice of alternately using two languages." Heller (1988) describes it as "the use of more than one language in the course of a single communicative episode." Other linguists do not driftaway from these definitions. While Auer (1984) defines it as "the altering use of more than one language", Myer-Scotton (1993) refers to "the use of two or more languages in the same conversation." One widely adopted definition in many linguistic books is that of Gumperz (1982) "the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems."
The first four definitions seem inextricably related as they focus on "languages" rather than "systems or subsystems" as specified by Gumperz which implies that the bottom line of Gumperz's definition rests on the linguistic elements that can be found in a speech act. In other words, Gumperz pays special attention to lexical categories, syntactic construction and prosodic phenomena ignoring languages in which they can be conceptualized in "language varieties." Another point is that the definitions do not explicitly point to the social contexts or settings in which a speech exchange takes place,...