LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter focuses previous studies that are relevant to the study.

The review was done under the following subheadings:

a. Language and Society

b. Sociolinguistics: Factors Influencing How People Speak

c. Origin/ Evolution of Sociolinguistics

d. Scope and Goal of Sociolinguistics

e. Theories/ People’s Contributions to Sociolinguistics

f. Empirical Studies on Sociolinguistics Analysis

g. Appraisal of the literature reviewed

2.1 LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY

Language is indissolubly linked with the members of the society in which it is spoken, and social factors are inevitably reflected in their speeches. Language is a complicated business. In everyday talk, we use the word 'language' in many different ways. It is not clear how 'language' should be defined or what the person on the street thinks it actually is.

Then, people relate the word 'language' to the expression of thoughts. They often say that they cannot find words for their thoughts or express feelings. Or they are hunting for the right words. Alternatively, we say that language is a means of communication (Anthony, 2010).

The relationship between language has to do with relationship between language and culture. However, this is a complex one due largely in part to the great difficulty in understanding people’s cognitive processes when they communicate. Wardhaugh (2002) defines language in somewhat different ways, with the former explaining it for what it does, and the latter viewing it as it relates to culture. Wardhaugh (2002,

p. 2) defines language to be: a knowledge of rules and principles and of the ways of saying and doing things with sounds, words, and sentences rather than just knowledge of specific sounds, words, and sentences.

While Wardhaugh does not mention culture per se, the speech acts we perform are inevitably connected with the environment they are performed in, and therefore he appears to define language with consideration for context, something more directly compiled in the following:

… (l) Language does not exist apart from culture, that is, from the socially inherited assemblage of practices and beliefs that determines the texture of our lives. In a sense, it is ‘a key to the cultural past of a society’ a guide to ‘social reality’ and if we are to discuss a relationship between language and culture, we must also have some understanding of what culture refers to. Good-enough (1957, p. 167, taken from Wardhaugh, 2002, p.219) explains culture in terms of the participatory responsibilities of its members. He states that a society’s culture is made up of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members, and to do so in any role that they accept for any one of themselves.

Malinowski (Stern, 2009) views culture through a somewhat more interactive design, stating that it is a response to need, and believes that what constitutes a culture is its response to three sets of needs: the basic needs of the individual, the instrumental needs of the society, and the symbolic and integrative needs of both the individual and the society.

In his studies with Benjamin Lee Whorf, recognized the close relationship between language and society, concluding that it was not possible to understand or appreciate one without the knowledge of the other” Wardhaugh, 2002, p. 220). However, Wardhaugh (2002, pp. 219- 220) reported that there appear to be three claims to the relationship between language and society: The structure of a language determines the way in which speakers of that language view the world or, as a weaker view, the structure does not determine the world-view but is still extremely influential in predisposing speakers of a language toward adopting their world-view. Sociolinguistics is a developing branch of linguistics and sociology which investigates the individual and social variation of language. Just as regional variation of language can give a lot of information about the place the speaker is from, social variation tells about the roles performed by a given speaker within one community, or

country.

2.2 SOCIOLINGUISTIC: FACTORS INFLUENCING HOW PEOPLE SPEAK

Sociolinguistics is also a branch of sociology in that it reveals the relationship between language use and the social basis for such use. Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the effect of the society on the language, while the latter's focus is on the language's effect on the society. Sociolinguistics is a practical, scientific discipline which researches into the language that is actually used, either by native speakers or foreigners, in order to formulate theories about language change. There are numerous factors influencing the way people speak which are investigated by

sociolinguistics. These factors as stated by Anthony (2010) are as follow:

1. Social Class: the position of the speaker in the society, measured by the level of education, parental background, profession and their effect on syntax and lexis used by the speaker. An important factor influencing the way of formulating sentences is, according to sociolinguists, the social class of the speakers. Thus, there has been a division of social classes proposed in order to make the description accurate. Two main groups of language users, mainly those performing non-manual work and those with more years of education are the ‘middle class’, while those who perform some kind of manual work are ‘working class’. The additional terms ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ are frequently used in order to subdivide the social classes. Therefore, differences between upper middle class can be compared with lower working class.

2. Social Context: the register of the language used depending on changing situations: formal language in formal meetings and informal usage during meetings with friends, for example. It is notable that people are acutely aware of the differences in speech patterns that mark their social class and are often able to adjust their style to the interlocutor. It is especially true for the members of the middle class who seem eager to use forms associated with upper class; however, in such efforts, the forms characteristic of upper class are often overused by the middle class members. The above mentioned process of adapting own speech to reduce social distance is called convergence. Sometimes, however, when people want to emphasise the social distance, they make use of the process called divergence, purposefully using idiosyncratic forms.

3. Geographical Origins: slight differences in pronunciation between speakers that point at the geographical region which the speaker comes from. Sociolinguistics investigates the way in which language changes, depending on the region of the country it is used in. To describe a variety of language that differs in grammar, lexis and pronunciation from others, the term dialect is used. Moreover, each member of community has a unique way of speaking due to the life experience, education, age and aspiration. An individual personal variation of language use is called an idiolect.

4. Ethnicity: differences between the use of a given language by its native speakers and other ethnic groups. There are numerous factors influencing idiolect, some of which have been presented above; yet two more need to be elucidated, namely jargon and slang. Jargon is specific technical vocabulary associated with a particular field of interest, or topic. For example words such as convergence, dialect and social class are sociolinguistic jargon. Whereas slang is a type of language used most frequently by people from outside of high-status groups, characterized by the use of unusual words and phrases instead of conventional forms. For example, a sociolinguist might determine, through study of social attitudes, that a particular vernacular would not be considered appropriate language use in a business or professional setting; she or he might also study the grammar, phonetics, vocabulary, and other aspects of this sociolect much as a dialectologist would study the same for a regional dialect.

5. Nationality: clearly visible in the case of the English language: British English differs from American English, or Canadian English; Nigerian English differs from Ghanaian English; The study of language variation is concerned with social constraints determining language in its contextual environment. Code switching is the term given to the use of different varieties of language in different social situations. William

Labov is often regarded as the founder of the study of sociolinguistics. He is especially noted for introducing the quantitative study of language variation and change, making the sociology of language into a scientific discipline.

6. Gender: differences in patterns of language use between men and women, such as quantity of speech, intonation patterns.

7. Age: the influence of age of the speaker on the use of vocabulary and grammar complexity.

Language contact occurs when two or more languages or varieties interact. The study of language contact is called contact linguistics. When speakers of different languages interact closely, it is typical for their languages to influence each other. Languages normally develop by gradually accumulating dialectal differences until two dialects cease to be mutually intelligible somewhat analogous to the species barrier in biology. Language contact can occur at language borders, between adstratum languages, or as the result of migration, with an intrusive language acting as either a super stratum or a substratum. Language contact occurs in a variety of phenomena, including language convergence, borrowing, and relexification. The most common products are pidgins, creoles, code-switching, and mixed languages. Other hybrid languages, such as English, do not strictly fit into any of these categories.

Languages don't actually come into contact with each other. It is always the speakers of the languages who are in contact. Their attitudes towards each other will affect the way they speak. If speakers of a language want to identify with each other, they may find themselves adjusting their speech to eliminate the more obvious differences in pronunciation or vocabulary. If the speakers don't want to identify with each other, they may emphasize the differences in their speech, particularly if someone from the "outside" is present. Generally, the reasons why people want to associate with each other or not don't have much to do with the language they speak. It has more to do with the status or prestige of one or the other of the groups of people.

Speech differences come to represent social, political and geographic divisions between groups of people. These differences may also reflect differences in economic and political power. While we may react to someone's speech with a positive or negative attitude, we are really reacting to the whole complex of social, economic, and political connotations which we have associated with that speech variety. When one group is very powerful they may use that power, unintentionally or otherwise, to attempt to eliminate the speakers of another language, or, as is more often the case, to eliminate their speech variety. Differences in economic or political power and prestige almost always put the (speakers of the) less-powerful language at a disadvantage. People may decide to stop speaking it in order to avoid the social stigma of being part of the less-powerful group. Sometimes, however, speakers of such a language resist having their identity (as marked by their language variety) taken away from them and they may react to the pressures to use the more prestigious language by working all the harder to preserve, protect and develop their traditional language of identity.

Wherever languages come in contact with each other, there exists a greater need for at least some individuals to become bilingual.

In sociolinguistics, it can be shown that speakers change the forms of language they use in quite precisely describable social circumstances.

Speakers might switch from a ‘high’ form of their language to a ‘low’ form as and when the social environment suggests that they should do so: they speak, for instance, a standard educated form of their language in formal situations, and use a dialect form (whether social or geographical or both) of their language in informal, casual situations.

Speakers are seen to be aware of the 'correlations'; that one social situation demands the use of a particular form of the language and that another social situation demands another. The role of the social is to establish the correlation; the role of the individual is to implement and instantiate it as appropriate sociolinguistic behaviour. Speakers demonstrate a competence that goes well beyond the

grammatical/syntactic competence proposed by Chomsky (1965). Thus, sociolinguistics relates linguistic behaviour with social demands (Anthony, 2010).

2.3 ORIGIN/ EVOLUTION OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS

Sociolinguistics is the descriptive study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society. Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the effect of the society on the language, while the sociology of language focuses on language's effect on the society. Sociolinguistics overlaps to a considerable degree with pragmatics. It is historically closely related to linguistic anthropology and the distinction between the two fields has even been questioned recently. It also studies how language varieties differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g., ethnicity, religion, status, gender, level of education, age, etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social or socioeconomic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to place, language usage also varies among social classes, and it is these sociolects that sociolinguistics studies.

Precisely, sociolinguistics deals with the linguistics indices of social interaction that is aspect of languages that express or show evidence of various situations obtaining in the society. Furthermore, sociolinguistics is interested in among others, the analysis of people actually talk to one another in every day setting. Such settings include, homes, streets, markets, shops, schools, workplaces, hospitals, factories etc. therefore, it embraces the analysis of how such talks work, that is how talks between people are organized what makes talk coherent, and understandable, how people introduce and change topics, how they interrupt each other, ask questions and give or evade answers, and in general, how the flow of talk is either maintained or disrupted (Muhammad, 2003: 10).

Sociolinguist might determine through study of social attitudes that a particular vernacular would not be considered appropriate language use in a business or professional setting. Sociolinguists might also study the grammar, phonetics, vocabulary, and other aspects of this sociolect much as dialectologists would study the same for a regional dialect. The study of language variation is concerned with social constraints determining language in its contextual environment. Code-switching is the term given to the use of different varieties of language in different social situations. William Labov is often regarded as the founder of the study of sociolinguistics. He is especially noted for introducing the quantitative study of language variation and change, making the sociology of

language into a scientific discipline.

In addition, sociolinguists have learnt to classify speakers according to their different social groups and linguistic varieties (Trudgill 1983:34). This is because language, at times, may be a means of identifying a person’s position on a social or cultural

scale”(Bamisaye1997:21).

2.4 SCOPE AND GOAL OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS

Sociolinguists believe that language occurs in social contexts and norms. As an approach that studies everyday spoken language in its social context, sociolinguistics provides a fruitful starting point for these considerations. The central questions in this case in general are: what kinds of situations and norms determine the theoretical basis of variation studies and, more particularly, what is the role of spoken language norms in these dimensions? Before language is used, there are determinants which are societal based. In Nigeria, the language variants, especially with regard to English language, derives from the societal reactions to language use resulting from mixed linguistic backgrounds of the language users. In many big cities in Nigeria, language use has been a result of the linguistic orientation of the inhabitants and the issues of class, gender and location. We have corrupt versions of English and other languages as a result of the people’s attempts at fostering communication in the vast complex linguistic settings. Even the local languages are corrupted as codes are mixed and switched intermittently.

The scope of sociolinguistics

 Relation between language and society, uses of language and social structures.

 Synchronic and diachronic variation

 Dialectal variation

 Social variation

 Age-related variation

 Gender-based variation

The Characteristics of sociolinguistics as stated by Campoy (1993) are as follows:

 A branch of Linguistics.

 It considers that language is a social and a cultural phenomenon.

 It studies language in its social context, in real life situations by empirical investigation.

 It is related to methodology and contents of social sciences.

Approaches to sociolinguistics

 Social as well as linguistics

 Socially realistic linguistics

 Socially constituted linguistics

 Relation between: language and society, uses of language and social structures.

 Synchronic and diachronic variation

 Dialectal variation

 Social variation

 Age-related variation

 Gender-based variation

Areas of sociolinguistic study include:

 Focus on function: the organisation of speech and speech acts

 Competence as personal ability (idiolect)

 Performance as variable, individual- and context-dependent acomplishment

 Language as a social tool

 Speech communities as organisations of ways of speaking

 Variation according to regional origin, social class, age and gender (wikipedia, 2014)

2.5 SOCIOLINGUISTIC THEORIES

In order to justify the relevance of social variable to language study various theories have emerged. The three major theories are:

i. The deficit hypothesis by Basil Bernstein ii. The variability concept of William Labov iii. The ethnography of speaking by Dell Hymes

We shall try to contextualize these theories and see how they apply in

Nigerian context. Let us see what they are first.

i. The Deficit Hypothesis: According to Bright (2013), this theory was popularized by Bernstein (1971). Language and social class. Basil hypotheses that, language varies and different at the distinct level of socio-classes. To him, linguistic differences between the lower class and middle class result from entirely different modes of speech which are dominant and typical within these strata.

Basil’s ideas have revolved around the notion of the use of restricted or elaborated codes of language use. He summarizes the ideas as:

….. it will be argued that a number of fashions of speaking, frames of consistency, are possible in any given language and that these fashions of speaking linguistic forms or codes, are themselves a function of the form social relations take… some structure generates distinct forms or codes and these codes essentially transmit the culture and so constrain behaviour.

This means that whichever ‘fashion’ a speaker adopts is likely to be decided mainly by his social relationship to other speakers and to objects. Social behavior is constrained within the limits set by linguistics behavior, which is in turn constrained by social experience.

To Basil, in a restricted code, the speaker will chose from a limited set of alternative ways of organizing his language elements in order to convey meaning. The speaker elaborated code contains vocabulary and structure that are well defined.

While studying the language use in England, Bernstein found out that there is a relationship between educability and social class. He discovered that the speech of the lower class is more limited than the speech of middle class. This deficiency in the communicative repertoire of the lower class is what he termed the deficit hypothesis. In view of his findings, Bernstein posits that:

“the social success of member of a society and their success to social privileges, is directly dependent on the degree of organization of their linguistic messages”(pg3).

This means that socio-economic status can determine the success of an individual one of the implications of the hypothesis according to

Anthony (2010) is that: “social inequality of opportunity can be compensated by raising the standards of speech” (p.3).

The deficit hypothesis is not too sufficient a theory in the analysis of class-specific speech behavior. It does not take cognizance of all other sociolinguistics variables of age, sex, occupation, religions etc.

ii. The Variability Concept

This concept is all about the general level of interaction of language varieties over and beyond the behavior of individuals and small groups.

In the framework of the linguistics orientation of the variability concept, Anthony (2010) explains that the description of speech variation aims at explaining:

“how and in what function language systems are divided (regional, social, functional language varieties), how speech realization are evaluated and how they change on the basis of such evaluation…” (p.4)

The description also has to explain.

“…to what extent language system interfere with one another on the phonological, syntactic and semantic levels, how they are acquired, conserved and modified on these levels and finally on the basis of what relationship they co-exist or come into social conflict”.(p.4)

And according to Anthony (2010) the aim of researching into speech variation is:

“...to describe and explain the entire social network of speech practice and the complex competence that speakers have at their disposal for communication in correlation with the social norms and parameters. (p.4)

It should be noted that with research of linguist like William Labov and others, it has been realized that variation is a vital part of ordinary linguistic behavior. Britain and Jenny (2003) defines variety of language as:

“a set of linguistic items with similar social distribution” While Jowitt (1993) defines variety of language as: “one of many complete language systems, each used by a substantial number of people and each requiring it to be classified as a different language”.

iii. The Ethnography of Speaking

This theory is propounded by Dell Hymes in Anthony (2010). The ethnography of speaking is concerned with the situations and uses, the patterns and functions of speaking as an activity in its own right.

In ethnography, participants own explanations and conceptualization are appraised based on their home ‘made models’ this means that each speech community carries with it a norm that is conventional that are by members when they interact.

Hymes explains that any speech can be seen as comprising several components and the analysis of these is a major aspect of ethnography of speaking. Seven types of components or factors were identified that every speech event evolves. They are:

i. Sender(Addresser) ii. Receiver(Addresser) iii. A message(form)

iv. A channel

v. A code (this refers to language as it varies from one speech community to another) vi. A topic (has to do with knowing the subject of the discourse attributes attached to it) vii. A setting (scene, situation )

From an ethnographic point of view discovery of rules of

appropriateness is of practical importance, it is central to the conception of speaking as a system. One way that patterns of speaking constitute a system is in virtue of restrictions on the co-occurrence of elements. These components are what the acronym SPEAKING also represents.

S- Situation and scene: Physical environment i.e. the cultural setting.

P- Participants (this brings about the role relationship in a dyad).

E- Ends (reveal the result and goal of speech act)

A- Act sequence: (the manner of what is said).

K- Key: (tone of voice in speech event).

I- Instrumentalities: (channels of communication).

N- Norms: (rules of speech behaviour as related culture).

G- Genre: (categories that could be identified through linguistic form.

In the view of Hymes ethnography of speaking, one language equals one culture. To have communicative competence in a language, one has to take into cognizance the cultural norms too. This is why Hymes definition of language is appropriate here:

Whatever it is one has to know in order to communicate with its speakers as adequately as they do with each other in a manner which they will accept as corresponding to their own. (p.7)

However, the researcher has chosen aspects of Hyme’s ethnography of communication as theoretical basis for this study. In addition the study would analyze the sociolinguistic variables that are found in people’s conversation in Alaba market. These variables include:

Bilingualism/ Multilingualism

The term bilingualism has been defined from different perspectives. As a matter of fact, disciplines like linguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics propose, according to their particular domain, a definition for bilingualism. In general terms, bilingualism is characterized by the alternation of two languages. The problem arises when one wants to define the extent of language competence a person must have to be called bilingual. The best known definitions of bilingualism, according to Moreno (2009), come from Bloomfield in Anthony (2010), who states that bilingualism is the native mastery of two languages; Haugen in Anthony (2010), who argues that bilingualism is the use of complete and meaningful sentences in other languages, and from Weinreich in Anthony (2010), for whom bilingualism occurs when “two or more languages… are used alternately by the same persons” (p. 1). Clearly, those definitions (and others) may be situated along a continuum moving from a “radical” position to a more flexible one. For example, Macnamara in Anthony (2010) describes a bilingual person as someone who, besides the skills in his or her first language, has skills in one of four modalities of the second language. This is the case of speakers of indigenous languages or speakers of languages that may get in contact, for example communities that live along country borders. This definition would cover a wide range of speakers around the world.

It is practically impossible to determine how historical, cultural, political, and linguistic factors combine to lead to a bilingual situation. However, Siguan and Mackey (cited in Moreno, 2009, p. 212) identify the historical factors that may intervene to form bilingualism:

1. Expansion: processes to expand territories where a different language is spoken.

2. Unification: political processes to unify minor territories to make bigger states. Usually more powerful groups try to spread and impose their linguistic habits. When this process faces resistance by a minority group, a linguistic conflict may appear.

3. Post-colonial situations: independent territories or countries with a linguistically varied population.

4. Immigration: cities or countries that receive large numbers of people who speak a different language than that of their host. It is normal that immigrants need to learn their host language to survive. However, they try to keep their mother language to preserve their roots. It quite possible that second or third generation may see their parents’ language as one of “minor status” and a situation of subtractive bilingualism occurs.

5. Cosmopolitanism: places where international contacts take place, especially for commercial and political purposes.

On the other hand, the term “multilingualism” can refer to either the language use or the competence of an individual or to the language situation in an entire nation or society. However, at the individual level it is generally subsumed under “bilingualism.” This may be because, while there are probably more bilinguals in the world than monolinguals, there are not perceived to be so many people who use more than two languages habitually. There are, of course, many rich multilingual situations in the world. A common definition of “multilingualism” would then be – “the use of more than one language” or “competence in more than one language.” This allows for further refinement in the actual description to cover different levels of command or use of the various languages.

Societal multilingualism is created by contextual factors such as international migration (as in Argentina or the US), colonialism (e.g., in Wales or Kenya), international borders (e.g., the border between Austria and Slovenia), Sprachinseln (ethnolinguistic enclaves, e.g., Hungarian enclaves in Slovakia, Sorbian ones in Germany), and the spread of international languages. In multilingual societies, in which the same languages are generally used by the same people, the various languages have differing functions. This situation is known, depending on the number of languages involved, as diglossia, triglossia, or polyglossia

The choice of language among multilinguals is determined according to social variables. These social variables are also instrumental in code-switching between languages within the same stretch of discourse. Multilingualism, especially in more open settlement, has been characterized by dynamics which have been the focus of much research. Multilinguals are people who either belong to more than one language group or function within more than one language group. Multilinguals’ choice of languages is determined according to: [10]

Interlocutor: Different people will be identified as, say, X, Y, or Z speakers. Such an identification will be made even by many who are themselves multilingual. Such people will be addressed in the appropriate language. Interlocutors who are monolingual will usually cause a codeswitch even if they are passive participants in a conversation. The age of an interlocutor may influence the choice of the language. The interlocutor is the basis of one method of bringing up children bi- or multilingually, where both parents or different relatives consistently use their language to the child. It is difficult to break the nexus between interlocutor and language once a relationship has been established.

Role relationship: Where the same interlocutors have multiple relationships (e.g., a family friend in a Hispanic context and a publicschool teacher in an Anglo-American context), the language choice may be governed by the role relationship.

Domain: The contextualized sphere of communication, e.g., home, work, school, religion, transactional, leisure or friendship, community group. The home domain is often the last that survives in a minority language, but sometimes it is religion and/or a community group. Where there are several languages, their use may also be domain-bound, e.g., among some Mauritian immigrants in Australia, Mauritian Creole (the French Creole of Mauritius) for home, Standard French for religion, English for the work and transactional domains. A limitation of the use of a language to one domain can mean an impoverishment of the language; not using it in the home domain detracts from its liveliness and endangers its transmission into future generations, while using it solely in the home domain limits its ultimate usefulness, since speakers will be unable to cope with the interpenetration of domains such as talking about work or school at home.

Topic: This overlaps slightly with the domain. Different types of experience associated with the two languages (e.g., in the homeland and the country of migration, or in the spheres associated with each language) will cause some people to switch languages to talk about their jobs, their present leisure activities, school, new technological developments, or particular forms of sport, to give a few examples.

Venue: Certain buildings or other venues (e.g., street, garden, home) are identified with a more public or a more private domain and therefore generate code-switching to the other language.

Channel of communication: Some people who use one language for face-to-face communication will employ another for telephone communication. Some will speak one language to each other but write another.

Type of interaction: Formal business communication tends to be in the language of the public domain (except in some cases when it is restricted to an ethnic group) while more informal interaction, including the telling of jokes and anecdotes, takes place in the language of the private domain. Phatic function: The use of a particular language can signal an attempt to create a specific effect, e.g., dramatic.

The most important use of a “minority language” is boundary marking. The speakers of this language who may be perceived as an outgroup by the dominant group are able, through their bilingualism, to exclude the latter. They become the in-group. The first generation of an immigrant group, for instance, may require their first language to communicate (especially with their families and friends) because of their limited competence in the national language. The second generation usually does not have this need. Where they use the “minority language” for anything but a language of communication with the older generation – especially if they employ it with their children – it is for reasons of symbolic identification or else because they are convinced by the value of bi- or multilingualism.

Code switching and mixing

Code-switching occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages, or language varieties, in the context of a single conversation. Multilinguals—speakers of more than one language— sometimes use elements of multiple languages when conversing with each other. Thus, code-switching is the use of more than one linguistic variety in a manner consistent with the syntax and phonology of each variety.

Code-switching is distinct from other language contact phenomena, such as borrowing, pidgins and creoles, loan translation (calques), and language transfer (language interference). Borrowing affects the lexicon, the words that make up a language, while codeswitching takes place in individual utterances. Speakers form and establish a pidgin language when two or more speakers who do not speak a common language form an intermediate, third language. On the other hand, speakers practice code-switching when they are each fluent in both languages. Code mixing is a thematically related term, but the usage of the terms code-switching and code-mixing varies. Some scholars use either term to denote the same practice, while others apply code-mixing to denote the formal linguistic properties of language-contact phenomena, and code-switching to denote the actual, spoken usages by multilingual persons

The term "code-switching" is also used outside the field of linguistics. Some scholars of literature use the term to describe literary styles which include elements from more than one language, as in novels by Chinese-American, Anglo-Indian, or Latino writers. In popular usage, code-switching is sometimes used to refer to relatively stable informal mixtures of two languages, such as Spanglish, Franponais or Portuñol. Both in popular usage and in sociolinguistic study, the name codeswitching is sometimes used to refer to switching among dialects, styles or registers, as practiced by speakers of African American Vernacular English as they move from less formal to more formal settings. [11]

More so, Code-mixing refers to the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech. Some scholars use the terms "code-mixing" and "code-switching" interchangeably, especially in studies of syntax, morphology, and other formal aspects of language. Others assume more specific definitions of code-mixing, but these specific definitions may be different in subfields of linguistics, education theory, communications etc.

Code-mixing is similar to the use or creation of pidgins; but while a pidgin is created across groups that do not share a common language, code-mixing may occur within a multilingual setting where speakers share more than one language.

While linguists who are primarily interested in the structure or form of code-mixing may have relatively little interest to separate codemixing from code-switching, some sociolinguists have gone to great lengths to differentiate the two phenomena. For these scholars, codeswitching is associated with particular pragmatic effects, discourse functions, or associations with group identity. In this tradition, the terms code-mixing or language alternation are used to describe more stable situations in which multiple languages are used without such pragmatic effects.

A mixed language or a fused lect is a relatively stable mixture of two or more languages. What some linguists have described as "codeswitching as unmarked choice" or "frequent codeswitching" has more recently been described as "language mixing", or in the case of the most strictly grammaticalized forms as "fused lects".

In areas where code-switching among two or more languages is very common, it may become normal for words from both languages to be used together in everyday speech. Unlike code-switching, where a switch tends to occur at semantically or sociolinguistically meaningful junctures, this code-mixing has no specific meaning in the local context. A fused lect is identical to a mixed language in terms of semantics and pragmatics, but fused lects allow less variation since they are fully grammaticalized. In other words, there are grammatical structures of the fused lect that determine which source-language elements may occur.

A mixed language is different from a creole language. Creoles are thought to develop from pidgins as they become nativized. Mixed languages develop from situations of code-switching. [12]

Empirical Study on Sociolinguistic Analysis

Many researches have been carried out on sociolinguistic analysis. For instance, Robert (2005) investigated Second Language Acquisition and Sociolinguistic Variation. He submitted that Variation pervades the speech of second language learners. Vietnamese learners of English, for example, sometimes mark verbs for tense and sometimes fail to do so (Wolfram, 1985). Sometimes English speaking learners of French delete ne, while at other times they do not (Regan, 1996; Dewaele, 2004). However, despite the promise offered by early variationist studies of second language acquisition (SLA), until recent years relatively few SLA researchers availed themselves of the potential offered by the methodological and analytical tools developed in variationist sociolinguistics. Robert's article outlines the recent contributions of variationist linguistics to SLA and suggests future research that may enhance our understanding both of SLA and of intercultural communication.

Also, Pilar (2007) carried out a study on the sociolinguistics of /R/liaison in English: AN empirical Study. His paper is intended to provide empirical evidence on the relationship between gender and a particular phonological feature of non-rhotic English called /r/-liaison, which includes the phenomenon of linking /r/ and that of the stigmatised intrusive /r/. Two hypotheses were investigated using BBC news archives from the years 2004-2005 read by over a hundred BBC newsreaders amounting to more than 40000 words were analysed: a) that the rate of usage of linking /r/ would be the same for both men and women; and b) that, given its stigmatisation, women would tend to avoid the use of intrusive /r/ more than men do. The results obtained confirm the first hypothesis, that men and women make equal use of linking /r/; though not the second, that women would produce fewer intrusive /r/’s than men.

More so, Nwaozuzu, Agbedo and Ugwuona (2013) investigated Sociolinguistic study of language contact in Ubolo speech community, Enugu State-Nigeria Their work presents a preliminary report of the linguistic study of language contact in a rural speech community of Ubolo, Enugu State, Nigeria, using a sociolinguistic approach. The researchers selected seven linguistic groups in the area of study. They are Ubolo (the indigenous community), Awka, Onitsha and Owerri from different regional linguistic groups of Igboland. Others include:

Hausa, Idoma and Yoruba from other ethnolinguistic groups in Nigeria. The researcher relied mostly on unstructured oral interview, direct observations, group discussions, and interactive sessions. The data collected for the study were analyzed using Higa’s directionality model of analysis. From the study, five basic issues that influenced language contact in Ubolo speech community were established from the factors examined. These are trade/historical antecedents, access roads, border areas, migrations.

More specifically, the research revealed the effects of language contact to include linguistic borrowing, code-switching, and hyper adoptation. In addition, it was discovered that the factors that influenced linguistic borrowing in the area of study include: Domain or the contact area, age, convergence, prestige, referee design, and interaction.

2.6 APPRAISAL OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW

The review of literature revealed that sociolinguistics is a branch of knowledge that focuses attention on the analysis of how people actually talk to one another in every day setting. Such settings include, homes, streets, markets, shops, schools, workplaces, hospitals, factories etc. it was also noted from the review that William Labov is often regarded as the founder of the study of sociolinguistics. He is especially noted for introducing the quantitative study of language variation and change, making the sociology of language into a scientific discipline.

In addition, the review made on language contact expose us to the fact that speech differences come to represent social, political and geographic divisions between groups of people. These differences may also reflect differences in economic and political power. While we may react to someone's speech with a positive or negative attitude, we are really reacting to the whole complex of social, economic, and political connotations which we have associated with that speech variety. “Multilingualism” can refer to either the language use or the competence of an individual or to the language situation in an entire nation or society. However, at the individual level it is generally subsumed under “bilingualism.”

Finally, it could be understood from the review that some scholars use the terms "code-mixing" and "code-switching" interchangeably, especially in studies of syntax, morphology, and other formal aspects of language. Others assume more specific definitions of code-mixing, but these specific definitions may be different in different subfields of linguistics, education theory, communications etc.