Code-switching vs. Translanguaging: Difference and Ideological Implications.

[@BerkeleyBass]

Thanks for an interesting video. First, a side note: You seem to be limiting the use of the term "code switching" to the act of switching one's discourse from one so-called "(standard) language" to another, where "language" implies a standard, prescriptively approved variety of speech (as opposed to what prescriptivists would call a "dialect," i.e., a sociolect that differs from the "Standard Language" but is held to be a variant of it. The example you give are someone who switches from English to French or German, rather than one who switches from, say, Yiddishy Crown Heights English to "Standard American English." However, I have seen the term "code switching" widely used to denote the latter process, i.e., when an individual switches among linguistic varieties that are considered to be variants of the same "language" -- typically, where one of these is the prescriptively defined "standard" and the other is not. For example, a person whose first language is AAVE (a.k.a. "Ebonics") may "code switch" into "Standard English" when in the company of non-Blacks. Your point about languages not being discrete entities is well taken. The first (and most powerful) way in which this realization was conveyed to me was in a lecture by my very first Linguistics professor, the late Bob Lees, almost half a century ago. It's an image that has stuck with me to this day. He pointed out that although one can often cross an international border (say, the Channel between Calais and Dover) and suddenly find everyone speaking a different "language," this is not always the case: If you set out on foot from Düsseldorf to Maastricht (it's about a 20-hour hike), you will cross an international border as you leave Germany and enter the Netherlands, but the "language" you hear will make no sudden change. Rather, the local speech will change subtly from one village to the next all along your journey, and there will be no point at which you can conclusively say that people have stopped speaking "German" and started speaking "Dutch." (For historic geopolitical reasons, this phenomenon is far more rare in Europe than it once was.) I think the importance of understanding the geopolitical origins of this false notion of discrete languages cannot be overstated, and I salute you for promoting this understanding. That said, I have the same reservations about switching (no pun intended) from a ubiquitous term to an obscure neologism that I expressed in response to your video about "L1" vs. "native speaker": There is no self-evident reason that one term is more apt than the other, so of course the introduction of the new term must be accompanied by an effort to educate the public about the considerations that underlie its use (as you have done in this video). But once one is aware of those considerations, once one understands that languages are not discrete mental or psychological entities, what additional advantage is provided by adopting the new term?

[@thehyperpolyglotactivist]

Great comment, thanks. I entirely agree with your side note. Changing from ebonics to standard English would be another instance of what has been traditionally called "code-switching". Still, the same observations I made concerning "code-switching" between standardized languages also apply to those linguistic varieties. I lived in Belgium for a year and once travelled from Charleroi to Maastricht, stopping here and there along the way, so your example certainly resonates. I disagree on the second bit of your last point. "L1 speaker" might sound obscure but certainly the idea that a given language is one's first or second language is far from obscure. Similarly, I don't think the idea of linguistic repertoire or languaging is any more obscure than code-switching. In both cases I explained why L1 "speaker" is more apt than "native speaker", and why "translanguaging" is more apt than "code-switching", respectively: my alternative designations are both more accurate and less ideologically problematic. And just as I said about my personal experience with "people whose first language is not English" (as opposed to non-native speakers of English) apropos London 2012, here again it is crucial to realize that terminological change, increased awareness and physical/political change are intractably linked in a continuum, though the extent to which drastic changes in one of these extremes has a profound impact on the others depends on a more complex matrix of circumstances. But to be very specific: the emergence of the translanguaging paradigm has de-stigmatized and empowered large segments of the school population, particularly in bilingual programs in the US. This is real change here and now, as well as for the generations to come. Here are some sources: www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/bringing-translanguaging-dual-language-education-programs/ journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468798419838569 traue.commons.gc.cuny.edu/volume-iv-issue-1-fall-2015/translanguaging-for-social-justice/