余燕

【Abstract】Code-Switching （CS） is an interesting linguistic phenomenon which refers to the use of two or more linguistic varieties in the same conversation or interaction. The films of Rush Hour involves a great deal of CS and thus becomes an ideal material to study the linguistic phenomenon. This paper is dedicated to analyzing CS in films of Rush Hour with Myers-Scottons Markedness Model.

【Key words】Code-Switching; Rush Hour; Markedness Model

Introduction

1.Research Background and objectives

Since the 1970s， CS has become a heated research topic for linguists. Over the past decades， globalization has witnessed a sharp rise of CS. It can be easily found in everyday life. For example， “What are you 弄啥嘞？” has been spread as a network buzzword for it impresses people with funniness.

The popular Rush Hour films made a good use of CS （English， Chinese， Cantonese and Japanese） to achieve an effect of humor. Characters in it switch their codes according to different language environments， purposes and so on. Therefore， Rush Hour can be taken as an ideal case to study CS phenomenon.

This thesis is meant to conduct a theoretical study of CS with Myers Scottons Markedness Model and is dedicated to find out underlying mechanisms and functions of CS. In details， this thesis aims to solve the following questions：

（1） What are the causes of CS in Rush Hour？

（2） What characteristics does CS in Rush Hour have？

（3） What are the functions of CS in Rush Hour？

2. Literature Review

2.1 The Definition of CS

The term CS refers to “the alternate use of two or more languages within the same utterance or during the same conversation” （Hoffmann，1991）. CS， a cover term for language or code alternations， is an extremely common occurrence and a favored strategy， especially in oral discourse （Verschuren，1999）.

2.2 Previous Studies on CS

In the 1970s， Blom and Gumperz distinguished two types of CS in Social Meaning in Structure： CS in Norway. They made a distinction between situational and metaphorical CS. In 1983， Myers-Scotton put forward his Markedness Model. The concept “markedness” was first put forward by Jakobson. Scotton put this concept into the study of language variation and thought that the choice of code also had a distinction between “marked” and “unmarked”.

3. Theoretical Foundation

With extensive linguistic theory basis， Markedness Model is a development of markedness theory in cognitive pragmatic aspect （Zhu Changhe， 2005）. In Markedness Model， members in the same linguistic community have the consensus of what the suitable code is， and the knowledge that choosing marked codes in certain situations will lead to special effects. Scotton presumes that markedness metric， speakers competence to identify marked codes， is contained in Chomskys pragmatic competence. The cognitive system in speakers mind will obtain the capability of understanding markedness through speakers interaction experience in his or her speech community.

3.1 Indexicality and Effect

Two fundamental notions in Markedness Model are indexicality and effect. Based on indexicality， a code is included into marked or unmarked categories according to the expectations a speech community have in specific language settings. The choice that can be predicated by social norms is unmarked. However， whether a code is marked or not is a matter of continuum and there is no clear cut between them.

Effect is linked to how the listener process the speakers intention. Scotton considered that intention， the indirect meaning in an utterance， can also be expressed through CS. In her Codes and Consequences， lots of examples show that speakers may express certain intention by means of CS.

3.2 Rights and Obligations and Negotiation Principle

Scotton proposed a “Rights and Obligations” principle （the RO set）， which refers to the mutual attitudes and expectations participants have for each other in a conversation. Unmarked code choices form a set of unmarked “rights and obligations” while marked choices are manifestations of negotiation.

3.3 Rational Actor Model

Code choices are calculated by speakers in order to gain maximum benefits. Firstly， as rational acts attach importance to cost-benefit analysis， choices are necessarily related to purposes. Secondly， rationality is also the mechanism to account for how choices are made. The reasons for speakers to choose certain code is that they want to get benefit from the choice of themselves.

4. The Analysis of CS in Rush Hour by Markedness Model

In the following dialogues， all speakers in the dialogues have a consensus which guides them to choose marked or unmarked code under different circumstances. And speakers act of switching codes is a rational and leads to some ends. Particularly， CS as a marked choice is a process of negotiating to abolish the current Rights and Obligations set， and meanwhile， constructing a new set of Rights and Obligations the speaker wants the listener to accept.

Dialogue 1? In America

The Chinese inspector Lee finally met the Chinese Consul Han after fighting with American FBI members：

Inspector Lee （to American FBI in English） ： Dont move. （to Consul in Mandarin） ： 對(duì)不起，我來(lái)晚了。

Consul Han （to Inspector Lee in Mandarin） ： 你等一等啊。（to American FBI）： Mr. Rose， I think there were some misunderstandings.

Dialogue 2? In Hong Kong

Inspector Lee and Carter went to a club to investigate a murder case.

Inspector Lee： They dont like tourist here， so try to blend in.

Carter： what do you mean？ blend in？ I am two feet taller than everybody here.

Waitress （in Cantonese）： 兩位么？

Inspector Lee （also in Cantonese）： 是呀，我們只是想喝杯東西。

Waitress （in Cantonese）： 隨便啊。

These two dialogues are the examples of sequential unmarked CS for speakers social identities have changed in the dialogues. When the speaker talked to his countryman， he spoke mother tongue. When talking to a foreigner， the speaker switched to the addressees language. For example， in dialogue 2， inspector Lee switched from English to Cantonese when the waitress， a new speaker， joined the conversation. This kind of switching is actually for better understanding by maintaining the unmarked rights and obligations throughout the conversation.

Dialogue 3? In Hong Kong

Inspector Lee and Carter was caught by a woman named Hu Li. She slapped Carter in his face.

Carter： I have never hit a woman in my life， but you ass is pushing it！

Hu Li （in Mandarin）： 帶上車(chē)！

Carter： Yeah，帶上車(chē)，huh，帶上車(chē)！ （with an expression mixed with disdain and anger）

Although Carter did not understand what Hu Li said， he repeated her words “帶上車(chē)”twice. Firstly， this is marked CS because the code is repeated to give full vent to his anger and disdain. Secondly， the repetition of marked codes has a function of emphasis. As Carters emotion changed after being slapped by the woman， he switched his code to the womans language. According to Scottons Rational Actor Model， the speaker pays extra costs with rationality in order to achieve some ends. In this situation， Carter paid double costs in order to emphasize his negative feelings towards the woman.

Dialogue 4? In Hong Kong

Carter was hanging around on the street when suddenly saw the villain Ricky Tan he was looking for get into a car. Carter stopped a taxi immediately.

Carter： Taxi！ Taxi！ Follow that limo. This is a chase. Wherever he goes， you go.

（a second latter） Youre not moving！ This is the opposite of chasing.

The driver （in Cantonese）： 給錢(qián)吶！你不付錢(qián)怎么開(kāi)？

Carter （in English）：Ill slap you if you dont move the car.

The driver （in Cantonese）：給錢(qián)吶！

Carter （in English）： Im gonna slap you.

The driver （in Cantonese）：給錢(qián)吶！

Carter （in English）： All right. OK， look！ You understand that？（ took money from his pocket and gave it to the driver）

The driver （this time in English）： Now youre speaking my language！

After Carters command of moving the car， the driver refused and spoke Cantonese. When Carter threatened him， the driver repeated “給錢(qián)吶！” as a counterattack. Although the driver could speak English， he stuck to his own language deliberately. When Carter gave him the money， he immediately switched to English. This is also the marked CS for the situation of conversation has changed. The relationship between Carter and the taxi driver has shifted from enemies to employer and employee. Actually， his code-switching from Cantonese to English reflects his decreasing in power， for he wants to please his employer.

5. The Conclusion

In conclusion， CS is a rational action made by speakers in order to achieve some purposes. In Rush Hour， speakers switch language codes according to the external linguistic environments and the internal motivations. The following are the major findings of this study：

Firstly， CS is not a random mix of different codes， but a rational action of the speaker. Speakers in a conversation share the consensus of suitable codes and what effects a certain code will have.

Secondly， there are mainly two kinds of CS： sequential unmarked CS and marked CS. And the speaker pays these extra costs to switch from one code to another for some purposes， especially in marked situations. As a result， marked CS usually leads to special effects.

Thirdly， the functions of CS varies with situations. In the films of Rush Hour， CS has many functions， including indicating speakers mood change， conveying emphasis， designating a specific person， adjusting social distance， gaining power or authority， achieving a sense of humor and so on.

References：

[1]Hoffmann. An Introduction to Bilingualism[M]. London： Longman，1991：110.

[2]Myers-Scotton. CS with English： types of switching. types of communities[J]. World Englishes，1989：333-346.