Why do we code-switch?
Tagalog-English switching is all around us. It is one of the things that exasperate visitors to Manila
– they hear English spoken and they think they understand what’s going on and suddenly there’s a stretch they can’t understand. Then they realize there’s this back and forth between English and Tagalog and that’s why they’re lost – in short, they’re being exposed to Taglish, or Tagalog-English code-switching.
There was a time, some 40 years ago, when Taglish was frowned upon. This was because Taglish was associated with a speaker’s inability to use either Tagalog or English in complete discourse. It was a sign of lack of proficiency in one of the two languages. This can be called “deficiency-driven code switching.” Thus, a young child who is just beginning to learn English will revert to Tagalog when she doesn’t know the word in English. Another example: A young teacher just starting out to teach in English may get to a point where she is at a loss for words and thus continues in Tagalog. A further example, this time coming from the other end, and taken from the nationalistic 70s: Academics educated in English all their lives had to use Tagalog in public discourse because that was what the times demanded, and so they would begin their speech in Tagalog but give the rest of it in English (a kind of token lip service to Tagalog).
But the more common kind of code switching now can be called “proficiency-driven code switching.” This is the kind used by people who are proficient in both languages and who code-switch for purposes of communicative efficiency. I believe that bilinguals (and most Filipinos are bilingual, even trilingual) have the strategic competence to “calculate,” in a sense, which language would provide the most expressive, most concise way of saying something. This kind of strategic competence is currently very evident in texting – the texter can choose between English, Tagalog, or Taglish to state the message in the fastest, easiest way possible.
Consider the following actual text messages between a friend and me. I was flying from Manila to a place in Mindanao where cases of kidnapping were rampant. She texted me: Don’t get kidnapped. (The Tagalog alternative is: Huwag kang magpapakidnap – much longer to type out.) And I replied: Walang magra-ransom. (The English alternative is: No one will pay ransom [for me] – again, much longer to type out.)
An extended example from a recent interview of Noynoy Aquino published in the Sunday Bulletin of August 16, 2009 (p. P-2) exemplifies the reasons for code-switching among Filipinos adept in both English and Tagalog:
“When we came out to Florida with our aunts, with its palm trees, siyempre naiisip mo ’yung Roxas Boulevard. Kahit ’yung kutsinta acquired a really big significance as far as I was concerned. There was only a small Filipino community in Boston and a family friend would make kutsinta for the whole community. Eh sa dami, tigdalawang piraso lang. Before, every time kumakain ka ng kutsinta sa Pilipinas, one to sawa. Bigla sa Boston, dalawa lang. Lasapin mo ’yan! (laughs) Dahil the next time around, sa next Christmas season pa.”
Obviously, he had to use the Tagalog word kutsinta, just as we use content words like despedida, merienda, sawsawan, pakikisama, sayang! in English discourse. In another part of the interview, Noynoy said, “My mom kasi doesn’t relish being made kulit.” And we know that kulit doesn’t have an exact English equivalent. Noynoy’s use of the function words eh and pa constitutes another obvious reason for code-switching, just like the use of the Tagalog function words pala, naman, daw, nga, po, ba – those little Tagalog words carry a lot of meaning and can be communicated in English only in a round-about way. And consider his use of “one to sawa” – an idiomatic expression in Taglish that’s graphic and funny. And it is difficult to imagine how “Lasapin mo ’yan” can be expressed in English with the same punch, unless one is a native speaker of English and at home in its idioms.
At the same time we notice that it’s just happenstance that he uses “kahit” rather than “even,” “before” rather than “dati,” or “dahil” rather than “because” – the words in Tagalog and English are practically equivalent. It’s just the way it is that he uses one rather than the other. We also notice that the switching between the two languages is so natural and seamless.
These examples highlight the flexibility provided by bilingualism. And we are left with the conclusion that bilingualism is a resource, and the switching between languages is an additional resource. And so it is good that the disparagement of code switching in general – without distinguishing between deficiency-driven and proficiency-driven code switching – is now a thing of the past.
コメント