The influence of a receptionist's multilingual repertoire on code- switching during hotel reception conversations in Ghent and Brussels
Word count: 24,566
Marlies Verbruggen Student number: 01407570
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Stef Slembrouck
A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in de Taal- en Letterkunde: Frans - Engels
Academic year: 2017 - 2018
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Dr Slembrouck, for his guidance through this process, his help and useful remarks. Thank you to Thijs Gillioen, for reviewing one of my chapters. Thank you to my friends and family for supporting me, encouraging me and believing in me. Thank you to my aunt and uncle for all their efforts to provide me with very helpful contact information. A special thank you to my parents for making sure I got to every field study and observation on time, and to my brother for fixing every possible computer related problem I can think of. Thank you to the general managers of all visited hotels for allowing me to make my observations at your reception desks. And last but not least, thank you very much to the front office managers, contact persons and receptionists Stéphanie, Jincy, Laura, Chloë, Youyou, Jolien, Hatim, Edlyn, Virginie, Véronique, Bruno, Joaquim, Bianka, Birgit, Luc, Julien, Sandrine, Monica, Nathalie, Sil, Fredric, Andy, Bart and Maria Carmen for allowing me to follow you like a shadow, for filling in my questionnaires and for just being so kind to me.
Abstract
The globalised world imposes linguistic challenges on the people who are involved in it. Hotel receptionists in the multilingual environments of Ghent and Brussels are supposed to be able to accommodate to the guest’s linguistic capacities. Code-switching can be a tool in order to come to a mutual understanding. This paper explores in what way the language knowledge and linguistic competences of receptionists in Ghent and Brussels influence the amount and use of code-switching during hotel reception conversations, taking into account conversations both with guests and with colleagues. Attitudinal studies on code-switching show that the practice is generally not well received by speakers themselves, since it is often associated with insufficient language knowledge. This research verifies this assumption by comparing receptionists’ own conceptions of their linguistic competence with their observed linguistic behaviour at the front office desk. It is established that code-switching at hotel receptions is not predominantly used to hide linguistic incompetence, but rather as a tool to accommodate as much as possible to the preferences and competence of the people involved in the frame. To what extent the results of this study can contribute to the construction of general conclusions is yet to be awaited in further research. Nevertheless, it offers new insights in the way linguistic competence and code- switching are related in multilingual environments.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Methodology ...... 4 2.1 Conversation Analysis ...... 4 2.2 Discourse Analysis ...... 5 2.3 Data Recollection ...... 6 2.3.1 Data context ...... 6 2.3.2 Gathering of the data ...... 6 2.3.2.1 Observation with note-taking ...... 6 2.3.2.2 Inquiry ...... 7 2.3.3 Data analysis and concerns ...... 7 Chapter 3: Theoretical background ...... 9 3.1 What is code-switching? ...... 9 3.2 Literature review ...... 10 Chapter 4: Sociolinguistic situation in Ghent and Brussels ...... 14 Chapter 5: Code-switching as an exploratory device ...... 17 5.1 Brussels ...... 17 5.2 Ghent ...... 21 5.3 Accommodation and politeness ...... 22 Chapter 6: Code-switching at hotel receptions in Ghent ...... 24 6.1 General language profile ...... 24 6.2 Code-switching during conversations with guests ...... 25 6.2.1 Code-switching due to changes in frame and footing ...... 25 6.2.2 Normal non-fluency ...... 30 6.3 Code-switching during conversations with colleagues ...... 31 Chapter 7: Code-switching at hotel receptions in Brussels ...... 33 7.1 General language profile ...... 33 7.2 Linguistic behaviour of native Dutch speakers ...... 36 7.2.1 Code-switching during conversations with guests ...... 36 7.2.2 Code-switching during conversations with colleagues ...... 38 7.3 Linguistic behaviour of receptionists with native tongues other than Dutch ...... 40 7.3.1 Code-switching during conversations with guests ...... 40 7.3.1.1 Normal non-fluency ...... 41 7.3.1.2 Code-switching due to changes in frame and footing ...... 41 7.3.1.3 Code-switching in non-check-in conversations ...... 43 7.3.1.4 Individual attitudes and preferences ...... 45 7.3.2 Code-switching during conversations with colleagues ...... 47 Chapter 8: Comparison and discussion ...... 51 8.1 Relation between linguistic repertoire and code-switching ...... 51 8.2 Comparison Ghent and Brussels ...... 54 8.3 Comparison conversations with guests and with colleagues ...... 55 8.4 The role of English ...... 57
Chapter 9: Conclusion ...... 59 Chapter 10: References ...... 62 Chapter 11: Annex ...... 65 1. Transcription of a check-in conversation in Ghent ...... 65 2. Questionnaires Ghent ...... 69 3. Questionnaires Brussels ...... 75
Word count head text (introduction – conclusion): 22,852
List of figures Figure 1: Languages in Brussels (Janssens, 2001, p. 33) (my translation) ...... 15 Figure 2: Frequently used languages in Ghent ...... 25 Figure 3: Frequently used languages in Brussels (by native Dutch speakers) ...... 34 Figure 4: Frequently used languages in Brussels (by receptionists with other native languages than Dutch) ...... 35
Chapter 1: Introduction
The growing globalised world imposes linguistic challenges on the people who are involved in it. More and more, people of different cultures and different linguistic backgrounds enter into contact with one another. During these encounters, various tools are used to demarcate silent linguistic agreements in order to come to a mutual understanding. One of these tools is code- switching, or “the alternative use by bilinguals of two or more languages in the same conversation” (Milroy & Muysken, 1995, p. 7). This is a subject in sociolinguistics that has been studied since the early years of sociolinguistic science, first rather scarcely and as a rather marginal phenomenon that was believed not to accurately represent ‘monolingual’ societies. Not surprisingly, its significance was overlooked. Later, it was studied as a generally accepted and widespread phenomenon that was incorporated in other domains such as the study of Universal Grammar and psycholinguistics (Auer, 1998). Nowadays, there is an enormous amount of literature regarding code-switching and Milroy & Muysken (1995) even describe it as “perhaps the central issue in bilingualism research” (p. 7). Nevertheless, a holistic approach to the study of the phenomenon has never been established due to difficulties that inevitably accompany the study of different languages on the one hand, and overwhelming interest in the subject on the other hand. Moreover, what the term code-switching covers exactly, had never been demarcated, which hampers the construction of a unified theory. Eastman (1992) addressed this problem, saying that “[e]fforts to distinguish code-switching, code-mixing and borrowing are doomed” (p. 1). According to Gardner-Chloros (2009), we should keep studying it from as many different points of view as possible, until a consensual definition and approach can be constructed.
As mentioned above, code-switching has been studied extensively and through many approaches. One of these angles is its study in the speech of second language learners, even though this domain is rather fresh and scarcely examined. The influence of language knowledge on code-switching is even less studied. Therefore, the popular belief among speakers is that code-switching is a lazy or easy option, employed when speakers cannot be bothered with looking for equivalent words in one and the same language, or simply do not have the linguistic competence to do this (Gardner-Chloros, 2009). It needs to be noted that scientists, sociolinguists and researchers do not share this opinion. Nevertheless, there is still a lot to be known about the influence of one’s linguistic repertoire on the use of code-switching. This will be the focus of this dissertation. It needed to be ensured that the subjects of study had interesting linguistic repertoires and that the service encounters in which they operated allowed for
1
multilingual speech. Therefore, I opted for the observation of receptionists at hotel front office desks in Brussels and in Ghent. The research question will be the following: what influence does a receptionist’s multilingual repertoire have on the use of code-switching during hotel reception conversations? Related to this head question, the following questions will equally be addressed: How do the cities Ghent and Brussels compare regarding the influence of a receptionist’s multilingual repertoire on code-switching? What are the differences between conversations with guests and conversations with co-workers? I opted for hotels as the background of my study, since these locations are known hubs of multilingual conversation and because hotel receptionists have to manage their way around multilingualism on a daily basis. The choice for Ghent and Brussels finds its explanation in the fact that both cities have touristic and business assets and thus attract a diverse, multicultural and multilingual public. Interestingly, the cities, however situated fairly close to one another, have a completely different sociolinguistic background and are even governed by different language laws.
The study was realised through observational visits to seven hotels: three in Ghent and four in Brussels. Written accounts of the observations were accompanied by audio records of conversations that occurred at and around front office desks. To get a sense of each receptionist’s multilingual repertoire, they were asked to fill in an inquiry that questioned their introspective views on their linguistic competences in various languages in the domains of speaking, understanding, reading and writing; their most frequently used languages at the hotel reception and the communicative problems they encounter. The observations and questionnaires were compared in order to formulate an answer to the research questions. The working method and analysis can be associated with the traditions of both Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis.
Although this was not the original intention, the nature of the acquired data demanded two prominent distinctions in the analysis, next to the opposition of Ghent and Brussels: the distinction between conversations with guests and with colleagues, as well as the distinction between native Dutch speaking receptionists and receptionists with a native tongue other than Dutch. The last one only applies in Brussels.
The paper will be organised as follows. In the next chapter, the methodology according to which the study proceeded, will be explained. This includes an explanation of Conversation and Discourse Analysis, as well as an account of the actual observations and questionnaires. Chapter three will give a brief overview of the literature concerning the central issue and tries to provide a definition for code-switching. In chapter four, the sociolinguistic background of Brussels and
2
Ghent will be discussed, since this turned out to be an influential factor on the multilingual repertoires and on code-switching. Chapter five will give the account of code-switching used as an exploratory device during the greeting of the guest. This was not included in the chapters that are specifically dedicated to code-switching in Ghent and Brussels, because it is a common use of code-switching and its inclusion in the subsequent chapters would provide a rather distorted image of the situation. As said, chapters six and seven will focus on the actual data and their analysis, preceded by an account of the general language profile of the receptionists in each city. This was drawn up based on the answers to the questionnaires. Chapter eight will discuss and compare general tendencies that emerged from the analysed data, and is followed by chapter nine, which will take stock of the entire study and will provide a general conclusion.
3
Chapter 2: Methodology
This study associates itself with two traditions in sociolinguistics. The methods and approaches of Conversation Analysis, as well as the ascription of the phenomena to a wider social context, which is the case in Discourse Analysis, will both be invoked in this research.
2.1 Conversation Analysis
Conversation Analysis (CA) is an approach to sociology and conversations that was brought forward in the early 1960’s by Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff. The consensus over what CA implies has shifted over the years, especially because CA emerged out of the researchers’ interest for the work of Goffman and for Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology (Ten Have, 2007). Schegloff (1987) himself described CA as the study of talk-in-interaction. It aims to find order and patterns in what is normally seen as casual and unregulated conversations. Psathas (1995) claims that CA starts from the fact that “social actions are meaningful for those who produce them and that they have a natural organisation that can be discovered and analysed by close examination. Its interest is in finding the machinery, the rules, the structures that produce and constitute that orderliness" (p. 2). This search for order has given rise to the recurring use of important CA concepts such as turn-taking organisation with speaker selection processes, repair sequences etc. (Psathas, 1995).
This research can especially be associated with the four CA principles that Seedhouse postulates. These principles are the following:
1. there is order at all points of interaction 2. contributions to interaction are both context-renewing and context-shaped 3. no order of detail can be dismissed as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant. 4. analysis is bottom-up and data-driven (Seedhouse, 2004, p. 14-16 as cited in Slembrouck, 2015, p. 73)
The second and fourth principle are of particular interest in this paper. The second one plays a big role in some code-switches that will be analysed in this paper. What is meant by it is that each turn in a conversation is both a reaction to a previous move, and is thus context-shaped, as well as an anticipation to the next turn, and thus context-renewing. In other words, each interactional move is a display of the understanding of previous moves and the context that emerges from that, and an indication of the expectations for the next moves. Related to code-
4
switching, it often occurs that the speaker switches languages when engaging in a conversation with an extra interlocutor. The switch singles out a response from a different speaker than the one that was involved before the switch.
The fourth principle is the base of every CA research. CA research is data-driven in the sense that you start working of the gathered data, most of the time in the form of transcripted video or audio recordings, and you look for recurring patterns. The bottom-up approach implies that you analyse the data without any pre-made assumptions (Slembrouck, 2015).
2.2 Discourse Analysis
Whereas CA aims at analysing the mere data without taking into account any extra-linguistic background, Discourse Analysis (DA) does rely on sociocultural phenomena. Other than CA, DA has a wider scope, since it treats every semiotic event, including written text, sign language etc. as a possible subject of study.
According to Gee (2004), there are many different approaches to DA: some focus on grammar, others on lexicon or style. Nevertheless, they all have in common that they treat language in a constant interaction with social goods and issues, which is why DA is often linked with politics, media and various social issues (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Gee (2014) himself applies a broad approach that “looks at meaning as an integration of ways of saying (informing), doing (action) and being (identity) and at grammar as a set of tools to bring about this integration” (p. 8).
Since DA is more an umbrella term for all the different approaches of analysing semiotic events in relation to wider phenomena, it is often found to collaborate with more structured, analytical approaches and theoretical frameworks, such as functional grammar, subtypes of psychology or, in this case, CA.
This study combines the two approaches in the sense that the gathering of the data and parts of the analysis tie up with the theoretical approach provided by CA, but it also takes into account the speaker’s personal linguistic background and broader sociocultural phenomena to provide explanations for particular code-switches, which is the specialty of DA.
5
2.3 Data Recollection
2.3.1 Data context
All the data was gathered exclusively at hotel receptions in Ghent and Brussels. In total, the conversations at seven hotels were observed, three of which were situated in Ghent, the other four in Brussels. One of the four Brussels hotels was visited twice, but with different receptionists.
In Ghent, one hotel was situated in the historical centre of the city, the two others were located on a relatively small distance from the centre, but still close to the periphery with easy access due to the proximity of several motorways. Even though it could be argued that the hotels at the periphery welcome more business guests than the hotel in the city centre, which arguably would welcome more tourists, this did not seem to be the case. The easy connection of the periphery hotels to the city centre and the fact that the centre hotel had meeting rooms for business arrangements ensured quite an even balance between tourists and businessmen.
In Brussels, three hotels were situated in the industrial zone of Brussels, all at nearly the same distance to the airport. The easy connection to the airport as well as the favourable position amid major international companies ensured once again a varied hotel public, although it could be argued that businesspeople were more numerously present than actual tourists. The fourth hotel was located in the heart of Brussels, close to the Louizalaan.
The hotels were picked at random, except for the fact that I made sure to include centre hotels as well as periphery hotels.
In every hotel I attended a check-in session in the afternoon. On average, I observed approximately four hours in each hotel. This adds up to roughly thirty hours of observation.
2.3.2 Gathering of the data
2.3.2.1 Observation with note-taking
The hours I spent at the hotels were dedicated to observing the linguistic practices of the receptionists. I wrote down everything as exhaustively as possible. I attempted to record some linguistically interesting conversations. I positioned myself either discretely near the reception or, with permission, behind the reception desk itself. The front office employees were fully informed of the what, why and how of my being there and all consented in participating. It is
6
almost inevitable that my presence might have influenced the receptionists’ linguistic behaviour. Nevertheless, I believe this influence was reduced to a minimum since I never intervened with the conversations that took place and I positioned myself as unnoticeably as possible.
2.3.2.2 Inquiry
In order to unravel the influence of a receptionist’s linguistic background on the course of the observed conversations, the receptionists were asked in advance to fill out a short questionnaire that surveys what languages they use the most in conversations with guests and what kind of communication problems they experience. The most important part for this research is a grid in which asked to indicate their language knowledge for Dutch, French, English, German and possible other languages in four competences, i.e. speaking, writing, understanding and reading. The questionnaires were available in Dutch, English and French and each receptionist filled in the one of their personal preference.
The questionnaires can be found under Annex 2 and 3.
2.3.3 Data analysis and concerns
The recordings were transcribed according to the VOICE conventions (Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English: Transcription Conventions) for English Lingua Franca (ELF) conversations, with the help from notes that had been taken during the observation. In transcriptions in which English is the dominant language, these conventions will be strictly followed. However, the VOICE conventions are not really fit for conversations in other languages. Therefore, transcriptions of conversations which are predominantly French or Dutch will follow the conventions as much as possible, except for the symbols of language indications. Because the abundance of symbols would make the transcriptions almost unreadable, I opted for the following system: English utterances are presented in a normal fond, while Dutch utterances are in italics and the French ones are underlined.
The transcriptions, notes and questionnaires were analysed and compared to one another and to existing literature on relatable topics.
7
There are a few concerns that can play a role in the analysis, conclusions and relevance of this research. It is important to acknowledge and understand these. First, as already mentioned above, the receptionists knew their language use was being observed. I tried to reduce the influence of my presence to the bare minimum, by positioning myself discretely. Second, the number of receptionists and hotels is too small to claim the possibility of general conclusions. However, the results should not be considered irrelevant because of the rather small scale either. It is yet to be proven to what extent the results can be generalised. Third, this study was a qualitative one rather than a quantitative one. Even though claims will be made about the amount of code-switching, these numbers should be treated critically. There were differences between the size of the hotels and consequently, between the number of guests and front office conversations. Moreover, the hotels were visited over a period of more than two months, including official vacation periods, which also influenced the number of guests. All these variables make a quantitative analysis difficult. Yet, the few numbers that are mentioned will be placed in context as much as possible. Furthermore, this study takes into account the language profile and linguistic competence of receptionists based on their own answers in an inquiry. This is reported, introspective knowledge. Introspective views are sometimes deviant from the reality – people tend to under or overestimate their own proficiency for various reasons – and thus do not always correspond with the actual linguistic profile of the receptionist. Testing their knowledge of Dutch, French, English and potential other languages could be a possible solution to this problem. However, this would be a very time-consuming task for the receptionists and it would not add a considerable amount of valuable information to the research. Finally, three out of the four visited hotels in Brussels were situated in the industrial zone of Brussels, close to major international companies and the airport. This area is situated in the Brussels Periphery and belongs to Flanders, strictly speaking. However, given the linguistic situation of the Brussels Periphery and the international public that this area attracts, the conversations at these hotel receptions can still be considered as a rather representative model for the situation in the rest of Brussels.
8
Chapter 3: Theoretical background
3.1 What is code-switching?
Code-switching, i.e. the “alternating use of two or more ‘codes’ within one conversational episode” (Auer, 1998, p. 1), is a concept which is difficult to delineate. Its boundaries are not conventionally defined, which results in various manipulations of the concept in different studies. Milroy and Muysken (1995) touched upon the issue by saying that: “[t]he field of CS research is replete with a confusing range of terms descriptive of various aspects of the phenomenon. Sometimes the referential scope of a set of these terms overlaps and sometimes particular terms are used in different ways by different writers” (p. 12). Nevertheless, one clear definition of the basic concept, without taking into account any marginal or overlapping phenomena, is the following: “[i]t refers to the use of several languages or dialects in the same conversation or sentence by bilingual people. It affects practically everyone who is in contact with more than one language or dialect, to a greater or lesser extent” (Gardner-Chloros, 2009, p. 4). The dividing line between code-switching and other linguistic occurrences such as borrowing, is a very fine one. These are often put together under the umbrella term of language mixing (Pfaff, 1979, p. 291). To avoid any confusion, every occurrence of alternate language use in this paper will be denominated as code-switching, unless mentioned otherwise.
Not only is code-switching an umbrella term for every switch between languages, it also implies switching between different varieties of one language, between registers or levels of formality (Gardner-Chloros, 2009). In this paper, code-switching always implicates the alternation between languages, unless mentioned otherwise. Alternating between oral modes of speaking and sign language is likewise considered code-switching, however not a type that will be discussed in this paper. Even though it can equally be observed in prepared speech or even written texts, the occurrences in this paper will exclusively be retrieved from spontaneous speech.
The specific use of terms in this paper requires some additional information. The term code- switching will not only be used to denominate linguistic events as described above, it will equally cover the notion of language choice. To give an example: when a speaker addresses an interlocutor in language A, but another one in language B, with no interference of the conversations, this language choice will be considered as code-switching. Moreover, the terms intersentential and intrasentential switching will be mentioned. The former refers to switching
9
in between utterances – over the boundaries of turns –, whereas the latter refers to switching within one utterance.
3.2 Literature review
Code-switching has been a topic of interest in linguistics for numerous years. Whereas it was considered substandard language use in the 1950’s and the 1960’s, it became a widely researched topic since the 1970’s (Auer, 1998). Since then, code-switching has had its importance in findings in syntax and semantics, psycholinguistics and, most importantly, sociolinguistics. Since this study is situated in the sociolinguistic field, we will elaborate on the literature in this field in particular.
According to Li Wei (1998), Blom & Gumperz’s distinction between situational and metaphorical switching has been the most ground-breaking assumption about code-switching for a long time. Even though there are numerous other models nowadays, including some critique on Gumperz’s model, it is still worth to start the overview of the literature with a basic explanation of his views. Gardner-Chloros (2009) describes the notion of situational switching as a change in language or variant when the situation changes, whether it be a change of context, interlocutor or topic. Metaphorical switching is a part of conversational code-switching, i.e. a type of switching where there are no such external causes, and is used to denominate the switches that invoke a certain connotation. She argued herself that this clear-cut distinction seems to be an idealised theoretical concept, which is not often observed in reality. Rampton (1998) adds to this that most situational switches are often longer and emerge from the context, while metaphorical switches are usually shorter and can be intra-sentential.
Furthermore, code-switching mostly occurs in multilingual situations or situations involving language contact. Therefore, it is a popular subject in the study of minority languages, pidginization and creolisation, i.e. the rise of new communicative structures and eventually new languages in situations of sudden contact between people of different linguistic backgrounds who need to communicate with one another (Romaine, 2017). Pioneer in the study of the relationship between code-switching and pidginization, was Gumperz (1964), focussing on the similarities between the two phenomena. Later important studies on the matter include work of Romaine, attributing to the study of compound words in code-switching (1986) and arguing the indistinguishability of the origins of utterances in creole languages (1992).
10
The ‘how’ and the ‘why’ question of code-switching are two of the most important subfields in the matter. The ‘how’ question concentrates on the form and function which code-switching takes in conversational structures. Conversation analysts Auer (1998) and Li Wei (1998) are absolute authorities in this domain. They both believe that in the first place, code-switching needs to be treated as a conversational event, apart from any socio-cultural implications and reasons why the switches take place. A verbal action such as code-switching in a conversation is a reaction to a previous utterance and creates anticipations for the next utterance. It is thus both shaped by context and shapes context itself (Li Wei, 1998). Li Wei believes that Auer’s work is one of the most important contributions to the field of code-switching, saying that:
For Auer, situation was not a predetermined set of norms functioning solely as a constraint on linguistic performance. Rather, situation was seen as an interactively achieved phenomenon. Using the terminology and analytic framework of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, Auer argued that participants of conversational interaction continuously produced frames for subsequent activities, which in turn created new frames. (Li Wei, 1998, p. 157)
This approach is a sequential analysis and focusses primarily on the data itself to interpret the code-switches. This method is more recent than the older habit of invoking external linguistic or sociolinguistic factors as the main theoretical frame (Auer, 1998).
Whereas the ‘why’ question of code-switching has many possible answers, stemming from different points of view such as sociocultural reasons and implications, Myers-Scotton’s (1983) ‘markedness’ model is probably the most complete and coherent theory. Not only does it create a theoretical framework that can be applied to the motivations behind code-switching – a domain in which introspective views and presumed cultural implications often dominate –, it also seeks to declare broader linguistic phenomena. Important in her theory is the notion of indexicality: every linguistic choice relates to a set of rights and obligations that are unique for every linguistic community. Myers-Scotton argues that every linguistic move is either expected/unmarked or unexpected/marked in relation to the rights and obligations of the situation. According to Gardner-Chloros (2009), the markedness model draws from numerous other theories such as the Politeness Theory, Speech Accommodation Theory and Conversational Principles in order to declare linguistic behavioural choices. Critiques on this theory include the fact that Myers-Scotton considers every language move to be a rational choice, whereas this is not always the case. Auer (1998) has argued that instead of being aware of the framework around speakers’ linguistic choices, they create meaning as they speak.
11
Meeuwis & Blommaert (1998) critique the fact that Myers-Scotton considers monolingualism to be the normative, standard linguistic situation.
Having discussed very briefly some important issues and contributors to the field of code- switching in general, we will now zoom in on a smaller field that will be invoked in this paper, i.e. the study of language attitudes, accommodation theory and audience design. Whereas code- switching was treated as a marginal phenomenon in the early days of sociolinguistic research, the enormous rise in interest over the following decades proves that it is an interesting field of study, even in the highest scientific circles (Auer, 1998). Auer even states that it is “a subject matter which is recognised to be able to shed light on fundamental linguistic issues, from Universal Grammar to the formation of group identities and ethnic boundaries through verbal behaviour” (p. 1). Hence, it can safely be said that code-switching has successfully exceeded its former marginal status. However, this does not mean that normal language users share this view. Even though attitudinal studies focussing on code-switching are still quite rare, the studies that have been performed often show negative attitudes towards the linguistic practice (Gardner-Chloros, 2009). It is often found that speakers who employ code-switching regularly, stand rather negatively towards it. Speakers also believe it to be the easy or lazy option. An early example of such research was performed by Chana and Romaine (1984). They found mostly negative attitudes towards code-switching in a group of Punjabi-English bilinguals, even though their standard code proved to contain abundant code-switching. Alternatively, Gardner- Chloros, McEntee-Atalianis & Finnis (2005) found a more positive attitude towards code- switching in a group of Greek Cypriots living in London. Hence, it could be argued that attitudes are bound to community and cultural influences. However, they found that the more highly educated the respondents were, the more they disapproved bilingual language practises such as code-switching. This implies that speakers themselves still view code-switching sometimes as a marginal phenomenon that is associated with lower education and maybe even a lack in linguistic knowledge. However, Gardner-Chloros (2009) equally argues that there seems to be a tendency towards speaker’s acceptance of code-switching with a more positive stance towards it. This is a consequence of the gradually more accepted hybridity in cultural, racial and musical domains.
Furthermore, there are some studies which focus on the relation between code-switching and accommodation and the related concept of audience design. Concerning accommodation, Gardner-Chloros (2009) argues that code-switching “can serve as a compromise between two varieties, where these carry different connotations or social meanings for speakers and
12
interlocutors” (p. 78). It should be noted that accommodation is not a universal trait of code- switching and its application can vary even between members of one community, as Woolard (1997) argues. In a Catalan community, he observed that women showed a greater inclination towards accommodation than men and that they did so when wanting to establish closeness with the interlocutor, while men handled in the exact opposite way. The related notion of audience design, as it has been examined by Lawson & Sachdev (2000), implies that the language choice in conversations fits the involved audience. Code-switching is more employed when addressing members of the same community or members that are considered to be in- group participants.
Code-switching is often studied in specific contexts of language contact, such as foreign communities in urbanised environments or in situations or locations where multiple ethnicities and languages come together. The city of Brussels is such a place. It comes as no surprise that Brussels, as a melting pot of languages and with its own peculiar language regulations, has already been the background of some language contact and code-switching studies. In the study of Treffers-Daller (1994) for example, the French-Dutch contact in Brussels is used in the research of morphological and phonemic integration of words in the other language. It served to prove that the differences between code-switching and borrowing are sometimes very small and that the field of study would benefit from a unified theory regarding these concepts. In her work, she describes the sociolinguistic situation in Brussels in an exhaustive way, while drawing on this background to declare observed linguistic phenomena. She compares different geographic parts of Brussels, as well as various sections of the population and social groups. Chapters dedicated to traditional borrowings are alternated with new views on codemixing.
This chapter gave a brief overview of important theories and authors in the field of code- switching. It also focussed on subdomains which are important in this paper, such as speaker’s attitudes towards code-switching. The role of Brussels in these types of researches was also briefly discussed.
13
Chapter 4: Sociolinguistic situation in Ghent and Brussels
This study opted for a comparison of the linguistic situation in Ghent and Brussels because their linguistic profiles are remarkably different due to a deviant development and due to Belgian language laws.
When Belgium became independent in 1830, the whole country was bilingual French and Dutch and there was liberty of language choice (Willems, 1997). However, it was often the case that administration, professional contexts and the bourgeoisie employed French. Dutch was the language of the lower classes (ibid.). Strikingly, in 1846, 57% of the population spoke Dutch and only 42% spoke French (Treffers-Daller, 1994). Since varieties of Dutch were associated with lower classes, French became the language of upward mobility in whole Belgium, Brussels and Ghent included. However, from this point forward, the evolution of the two cities starts to differ. Ghent, located in Flanders, is subject to efforts of the Flemish movement to install Dutch as an official language in Flanders. In the period ranging from the independence of Belgium up until now, Flanders has evolved from being an officially French region, to a bilingual region, to a monolingual Dutch region (Willems, 1997). French started as a prestigious language and evolved to a language with an equal status as Dutch, to the point where nowadays, French is a foreign language taught in schools (ibid.). Brussels, on the other hand, in the capacity of the Belgium’s capital, attracted numerous high-class people and elite who spoke French. This encouraged a francisation. It resulted in a population who spoke a typical Brussels dialect, mixing French and Dutch into one code of speech (Treffers-Daller, 1994). However, immigrants from Wallonia and other countries preferred French to be the vehicular language, which is why French evolved towards the overall dominant language in Brussels (ibid.).
It is fixed in Belgian law that Ghent, belonging to Flanders, is officially monolingually Dutch, while Brussels is officially bilingual in French and Dutch (De Belgische Grondwet, art. 4). However, French is considerably more dominant, as is shown in the graph by Janssens (2001, p. 33). This graph shows the languages which citizens of Brussels master ‘well to very well’.
14
Language Extent 1. French 95.6% 2. Dutch 33.3% 3. English 33.3% 4. German 21.1% 5. Spanish 17.5% 6. Arabic 11.6% 7. Italian 10.6% 8. Turkish 3.6% 9. Portugese, Greek, Russian, Berber 1 to 2% Figure 1: Languages in Brussels (Janssens, 2001, p. 33) (my translation)
Even though Brussels is officially bilingual, only one third of the population claims to master Dutch to a sufficient degree. It is mastered to the same degree as English. French and Dutch are often native languages, whereas English is not. English is used as a vehicular language which is free from symbolic interpretations and tension (Mettewie & Janssens, 2007), which will be discussed later in this chapter.
A study that was conducted by Ginsburgh & Weber (2006) shows that in Flanders, 100% of the interrogated group speaks Dutch, 59% speaks French and 53% speaks English. These numbers are considerably higher than in Brussels, even though Brussels is officially bilingual. It was also found that in Flanders, 40% of the population masters the combination of Dutch, French and English, compared to only 31% in Brussels.
It should be considered that the data of both cities are influenced by the presence of other nationalities with their own language, whether they reside in Belgium permanently or for touristic or business purposes. Recent numbers from Toerisme Vlaanderen (2017) showed that in 2017, Ghent had approximately 1 million overnight stays, as opposed to 5.2 million overnight stays in Brussels. Furthermore, 33% of the Brussels population has another nationality than the Belgian one, as opposed to 13% in Ghent (VGC, 2015, p. 10). These immigrants often bring their own distinct language into the multicultural environments that are Brussels and Ghent, whether or not they speak Dutch or French as a foreign language. All these factors influence the multiculturality and, more importantly, the multilingualism in both cities. It is however clear that this influence is bigger in Brussels than in Ghent.
Ever since Belgium’s independence, language choice has always been a sensitive subject because “languages have a highly symbolic value because of historical, political and economic reasons” (Mettewie & Janssens, 2007, p. 126). The fact that French and Dutch were associated with such different social classes, as was explained above, instigated feelings of inferiority on
15
behalf of the Dutch speaking population. Their struggle to recognise Dutch as an equivalent language to French, was attended with sometimes violent episodes, for example the ‘Leuven Vlaams’ uprising in 1968 (Willems, 1997). The fact that Brussels, although situated in the region of Flanders and officially bilingual, remains predominantly French, is an eyesore for many Dutch speakers. According to Mettewie & Janssens (2007), even economic and social issues are often interpreted in relation to linguistic politics. Whereas studies show that in Belgium, attitudes towards the other community’s language are generally rather negative, bilinguals in Brussels experience other languages as positive (ibid.). These people are either native bilinguals or native French speakers who went to Dutch speaking schools and vice versa. The same study states that monolingual French families are increasingly likely to send their children to a monolingual Dutch school. Parents believe that bilingual Dutch-French children have higher job opportunities than they would have without Dutch skills. This fact shows that knowledge of Dutch is still important in Brussels. French families recognise the symbolic value that is attached to Dutch and consider its knowledge as an important asset to be appreciated by employers, especially when they have Flemish roots. This is confirmed by Janssens (2008), who claims that the number of people in Brussels who have absolutely no knowledge of Dutch is slowly decreasing.
In conclusion, the sociolinguistic differences between Ghent and Brussels date back to the very beginning of Belgium. The different evolutions have resulted in entirely different multilingual landscapes. Both areas have to take touristic and business-related multilingualism into account, although Ghent has to do so to a lesser extent. Moreover, both cities deal with the inclusion of other nationalities and thus a range of foreign languages, but again, this challenge is greater in Brussels than in Ghent. Furthermore, Brussels has to cope with the symbolic and historically charged presence of Dutch. This symbolic value of Dutch in Brussels is an important factor in multilingual conversations.
16
Chapter 5: Code-switching as an exploratory device
A large part of the switches appears in the greeting of the guest. In this case, code-switching is used as an exploratory device to determine the language in which the guest would prefer the conversation to happen, or, as Gardner-Chloros (2009) puts it, “when speakers are feeling their way to the most advantageous way to conduct the conversation” (p. 69). During the welcoming of the guest, the front office employee displays the languages they master well enough to maintain a conversation in and their willingness to adapt to the guest’s language. They thus position themselves as the flexible factor in the conversation. Whereas we will notice that this is an often-used tool in Brussels, its application in Ghent is considerably different and seems mostly characterised by a lack of code-switching. This type of switching is not integrated in the subsequent chapters, which treat code-switching in the different cities separately. It is important for both cities’ analyses regarding this use to be discussed together to really see the differences and variation. We will first discuss this use of code-switching in Brussels, with a specific focus on a case-study, followed by the observations in Ghent.
5.1 Brussels
Before we discuss more general tendencies of the different hotels and receptionists, we will focus on a case-study of three receptionists in the same hotel in Brussels. Their linguistic behaviour is a unique reflection of their personal multilingual repertoires. This emerged out of the observations and the questionnaires.
In this hotel, the receptionists all had a different way of greeting guests, which, strikingly, was a rather accurate reflection of their linguistic background. The first receptionist (Annex 3.2), a native speaker of Dutch, greets almost every guest with the English-French combination ‘Good evening, bonsoir’. This short and simple turn combines two functions: first and foremost, the guest is welcomed into the hotel and is invited to the front office desk to check in. Second, the receptionist displays which of the languages that are most currently spoken in the hotel, she masters. She offers the guests several options and conducts the conversation in the same language as the one they formulate their reply in. Subsequently, this form of code-switching is not due to a lack of language knowledge, but is in contrast used to display the speaker’s linguistic competence. In the questionnaire, the receptionist indeed indicated that they were equally proficient in French and in English, and both at a high level. The most remarkable aspect of the greeting formulation is that Dutch is systematically left out, even though it is the
17
native language: the phrase ‘Good evening, bonsoir, Goedenavond’, or variations on the triple language combination, never occurred. There are a couple reasons which could be at stake here. The first and most logic explanation is that the triple language combination is a long and complex way of greeting. The chances of getting interrupted halfway are quite high. Moreover, the receptionist knows the kind of audience the hotel mostly attracts, and in this case, the audience mostly contained businesspeople. Consequently, the chances to find a ‘matching’ language in English and French are high enough to leave Dutch out. The second reason is that, as a native Dutch speaker, the receptionist might be able to recognise a Dutch accent or any Dutch tendency in the guest’s language and react to that by switching to Dutch, without specifically having to address the topic nor explicitly having to list Dutch as one of their competent languages.
Occasionally, there were also cases observed where the receptionist tried to get a distracted guest’s attention with ‘hello, checking in?’ or ‘hello, how may I help you?’. In this case, the attempt to start up a conversation is the first and most important goal. The language exploration will happen over the next few turns, mostly after looking at the guest’s identity card or on the initiative of the guest himself, as is the case in the following data. Speaker one (S1) is the receptionist, speaker two (S2) is the Dutch guest. Dutch utterances are in italics.
1 S1: Hello (.) checking in? 2 S2: Yes please. 3 S1: Could I see your identity card sir? 4 S2: Sure (1) Spreekt u ook Nederlands? 5 S1: Ja zeker (.) ma- mag ik uw identiteitskaart alstublieft? 6 S2: Alsjeblieft {gives identity card}. 7 S1: U verblijft bij ons voor twee nachten? 8 S2: Euh (.) ja klopt. 9 S1: Zou ik ook uw even uw kredietkaart mogen zien? 10 S2: euh ja (.) waarom juist? 11 S1: Voor eventuele extra kosten zoals euh zoals room service. 12 S2:
18
14 S2: <1> bedankt (2) bedankt.
The first turn is constructed in English. Initially, in turn 2 and the first part of turn 4, the guest goes along with the language choice that has been established by the receptionist. In the second part of turn 4, he corrects the situation by establishing his native language. The receptionist reposes the question in Dutch as a means of confirmation of the language choice. The rest of the conversation proceeds in Dutch.
The second receptionist (Annex 3.1), again a native speaker of Dutch, systematically greets the guests with the English ‘hello’. The guests mostly reply in the same way and the whole conversation continues in English. Occasionally, when the receptionist received a Dutch or Dutch-sounding reply, she switched to Dutch. There were no occasions of her conversing in French with guests, even though she stated that she was rather competent in French. Nevertheless, she has a strong personal preference for English – she also indicated that she was more proficient in English than in French – and this emerges in her linguistic behaviour with guests as well as with colleagues. The data that involved this receptionist clearly show how a personal linguistic preference can influence a large part of the conversations. She indicated that she mostly uses English during her job, while her colleagues, however proficient they might be, all claimed a rather even spread between the use of English, French and Dutch. This is striking since they work at the same hotel, with the same linguistically diverse clientele.
The third receptionist (Annex 3.3) was raised bilingually in Lingala and French. Both languages are her native tongues. She rates her knowledge of Dutch as ‘basic’, and her knowledge of English as ‘well’, but not ‘very well’, even though she seemed perfectly able to maintain a basic conversation in both languages, especially English. Just like the first receptionist, she uses the English-French combination ‘Good evening, bonsoir’ to greet the guests and continues the conversation in whatever language the guest replies. In this case, not mentioning Dutch as a language to continue the conversation, may be related to her smaller knowledge of the language rather than estimating it redundant, as was the case with the first receptionist. However, as her working day continued, she sometimes used the phrase ‘Bonjour, goedenavond’. In an informal conversation, she stated that she always needs a little time to adjust to the abundance of languages that are being spoken, but that she feels more comfortable with her own language skills after a while. Consequently, at the end of her work shift, she conducted considerably more conversations monolingually in Dutch, or with a few insertions of other languages, which will be treated later.
19
In the other hotels in Brussels, the link between the greeting formulation and the personal linguistic preference or competence is much less explicit, nor does a comparable clear-cut distinction between the receptionists occur. In one hotel, the two receptionists, one a native Dutch speaker but extremely fluent in English as well as French (Annex 3.4), the other a native Spanish-Italian bilingual with Russian, French, English and Dutch competences (Annex 3.5), both greet guests with the neutral English ‘hello’ or let the guest initiate the conversation in approximately half of the conversations. Consequently, this results in a smaller amount of CS since in either strategy, they are able to continue the conversation in the language of the guest’s first turn. Because of their high and varied linguistic competence, less CS can be detected in the initial part of the conversation, whereas in the case of the first hotel, the linguistic competence gave rise to more CS in the exploratory phase of the conversation.
In another hotel, both receptionists (Annex 3.6 and 3.7), native Dutch speakers and both very proficient in English and French, have the habit to greet their guests in Dutch. This is probably the case because the hotel belongs to a Dutch hotel chain and therefore welcomes a rather large amount of Dutch speaking guests. Nevertheless, in at least half of the cases, the Dutch welcoming message is reciprocated with a non-Dutch reply. The initial code-switch happens on the initiative of the guest and this is met with a reply of the receptionist in that same language. Interestingly, the conversation unfolds according to a kind of negotiation model. Consider the next case of a guest who was at the hotel for a meeting and wants to validate his parking ticket. The first speaker (S1) is the receptionist, the second speaker (S2) is the guest. Dutch utterances are in italics, French ones are underlined.
1 S1: Dag meneer goeiemiddag. 2 S2: Bonjour. 3 S1: Bonjour monsieur. 4 S2: J’étais ici pour la la conférence de [org1]. 5 S1: De [org1] oui. 6 S2: Ma voiture est sur le parking de l’hôtel (.) est que je je peux juste partir comme ça ou euh j- euh?
7 S1: Il faut valider votre ticket ici à la réception monsieur. 8 S2: Ah oui {S2 gives the ticket}. 9 S1: Voilà monsieur (.) bonne journée. 10 S2: Okay thank you.
20
Instead of greeting the guest in multiple languages or in the commonly used English as a lingua franca, the receptionist opts for a greeting in their own language, but instead uses a negotiation model to come to a common language with the guest: the guest’s French reply is met with yet another greeting, this time in French. This comes across as an acceptation of the language that the guest proposes and as a reassurance that it is possible to continue the conversation in his language.
Evidently, these observations are more general tendencies than fixed rules. There are some attestations where the receptionists of this hotel greet the guest with ‘hello’ and ‘hello, bonjour monsieur’, but these were considerably less used.
In short, the code-switching that is included in the greeting of the guest in Brussels, is far from uniform. Moreover, similar linguistic repertoires do not always have the same effect on code- switching, as appeared in the case study, but even more in the study of other hotels. In some cases, an extensive linguistic repertoire gives rise to more code-switching as a confirmation of linguistic security, while the linguistic security that comes with these kinds of multilingual repertoires gives less rise to code-switching in other cases. Hence, personal preferences and hotel policy seem to play a significant role, next to the influence of linguistic competence.
5.2 Ghent
As mentioned before, the linguistic situation in Ghent differs from the one in Brussels. Even though Ghent is very tourist-focused, a considerable part of the guests in the hotels are native Dutch speakers with a rather good proficiency in both English and French, even though the latter is often mastered to a lesser extent. It was observed that the greeting of the receptionists towards the guests is more uniform than in Brussels and involves less code-switching. Based on no attested occurrences, there seems to be a smaller need to employ code-switching as an exploratory device nor as a negotiation tool to demarcate the language. Even though the observations above suggest that the greeting in Ghent predominantly proceeds in Dutch, this is not the case. Naturally, there were some occurrences in Dutch, i.e. ‘Goeiedag’ and ‘Hallo’. These greetings were attested in approximately one third of the cases. They are sometimes followed by a response in another language, but not as many as one might expect, considering the sociolinguistic background of the city, the specific audience of the hotels and the language capacities of the receptionists. Instead, in every observed hotel and with every observed front office employee, there were numerous attestations of the use of the word ‘Hi’. This word, which
21
is used as an informal replacement for the word ‘hello’, admittedly originates in American English as a variant of ‘hey’, but has become a universal greeting and is understood in almost every language (Merriam Webster Online, n.d.). The transition from this form to another language could barely be treated as code-switching, considering the universal character of the interjection. A receptionist uses it therefore as a language neutral way to let the guest know that they are ready to engage in a conversation, in whatever language seems agreeable to the guest.
5.3 Accommodation and politeness
As discussed, a lack of code-switching in greetings in Ghent can be noticed. The receptionists are very fluent in many languages and greet guests with a simple ‘hello’ or ‘hi’. They do not feel the need to display their language skills since they can easily accommodate to the language in which the guest replies. This proves to be rather typical for Ghent, an area where the inhabitants seem to be confident about their linguistic skills and are not subjected to linguistic insecurity. Therefore, the receptionists do not always feel the need to acknowledge the fact that they are linguistically competent. This contrasts with the situation in Brussels, where the cases of code-switching can be correlated with the notion of politeness. Woolard (1997) argues that women maintain a bilingual, code-switching conversation in the case where there is social distance between the speakers. However, they accommodate to a mutual language when there is closeness between the interactants. For men, he proves it to be the other way around. In the case of this research, there is no demonstrable difference between men and women, but the concepts of politeness and closeness do seem to have an influence on the course of the conversation. The initial, exploratory utterances that involve code-switching have as a purpose to be able to maintain the rest of the conversation monolingually. The receptionist accommodates to the guest’s language as a matter of politeness. It could also be argued that they accommodate to a mutual language to increase closeness with the guest and thus make them feel at home in the hotel, parallel to the behaviour of the women in Woolard’s study, but this cannot be said with certainty without further research. The fact that the receptionists absolutely want to accommodate to the guest’s language, is reflected and proven in the following bit of data. Speaker one (S1) is the receptionist (Annex 3.12), speaker two (S2) is the guest who wants to check in.
22
1 S1: Bonjour. 2 S2: Good after- <1> noon . 3 S1: <1> Good afternoon good afternoon (.) how may I help you?
The receptionist greets the guest only in French. When he notices that the guest formulates his reply in English, he interrupts and rapidly switches to English to bid him welcome again. The promptness of this utterance appears almost apologetic, as if he wants to apologise for assuming that the guest would speak French.
It can be argued that the greeting in Ghent has the same aim, i.e. displaying politeness, but this goal is reached with a different method which does not involve code-switching.
The question if the amount of exploratory code-switching in the initial part of a conversation is related to the language knowledge of the receptionist, can be answered with a rather hesitant ‘yes, but…’. More factors seem at stake rather than just linguistic proficiency. On the one hand, it is true that the receptionists who feel comfortable with more languages because they are proficient in them, will sometimes display these options at the beginning of the conversation and therefore invoke code-switching. This is especially the case in Brussels, where the complex sociolinguistic situation leads to more linguistic insecurity and pushes the receptionists to display their personal competence and preferences. However, this has to be seen in correlation with the kind of audience the hotel normally welcomes. On the other hand, there are also attestations of receptionists who are equally as fluent in many languages and greet guests with a simple ‘hello’ or ‘hi’. Their linguistic confidence allows them to accommodate easily, without a display of their multilingual repertoire. This is especially the case in Ghent, where the linguistic insecurity is smaller than in Brussels. Whatever exploratory strategy the receptionists use, all of them aim at accommodating to the guest’s language or to find a mutual language in order to maintain the rest of the conversation monolingually.
23
Chapter 6: Code-switching at hotel receptions in Ghent
6.1 General language profile
Based on the answers to the questionnaires, it is possible to draw up a general linguistic profile of the six observed receptionists in Ghent, concerning their competences in different languages and their language use at the front office desk.
All of the questioned receptionists are native Dutch speakers, except for one woman (Annex 2.1) who has been raised in Hungarian but whose skills in Dutch approach those of a native speaker extremely closely. She indicated this in her questionnaire and this was also observed during her communication. Consequently, all communication between colleagues occurs in Dutch. English is the most important second language, with an overall knowledge that ranges from well to very well in all domains, i.e. speaking, writing, reading, understanding. In all but one case, the receptionists lean towards a very good knowledge rather than just a good knowledge. Their reported command of French shows a more diverse picture, ranging from no knowledge at all, to a very good command. For the sake of correctness, it must be mentioned that the receptionist who indicated they have absolutely no French competence, is a citizen of the Netherlands, where French is not a compulsory subject in schools (Rijksoverheid, 2018). The other receptionists rate their French skills either good (in two cases) and very good (in two cases) in all domains, or a combination of good and very good skills, depending on the domain (in one case). A rather large part of the receptionists claims to have basic skills in an extra language, such as German, Spanish and Italian.
When asked what languages they use the most at the front office desk, the answers vary between English or the combination of Dutch and English. Figure 2 shows the response rate for the languages English, Dutch and German. The option ‘French’ did not occur among the answers. There seems to be no correlation between the most frequently used languages and their linguistic profile, since they all master Dutch and English very well.
24
Most frequently used languages at hotel receptions in Ghent 6
5
4
3
2
1
0 English Dutch German
Figure 2: Frequently used languages in Ghent
When confronted with communication problems with guests, they all claim to use Google Translate, sign language or the help of a colleague. None of them suggests employing a combination of several languages to come to a mutual understanding.
6.2 Code-switching during conversations with guests
Overall, there are very few attestations of code-switching in Ghent. The ones that did occur, are all discussed in the paper. The fact that code-switching in Ghent is scarce can be related to the fact that most conversations at the front office desk occur in English or in Dutch and that all the receptionists are very fluent in both these languages. The few cases of code-switching in conversations with guests and colleagues will be analysed in the following section, apart from code-switching in the greeting, which was discussed in chapter five.
6.2.1 Code-switching due to changes in frame and footing
The only occurrences of code-switching during conversations with guests, besides the scarce cases of initial switching during the greeting, could be discovered in a long check-in conversation between two intern receptionists with the Dutch nationality, and an Asian family. The interns had not been working at the hotel for a long time and the family had just arrived in Belgium. This gave rise to rather hesitant contributions on both sides of the conversation. The situation seemed to evoke more code-switching than in any other conversation that was
25
observed in the hotels in Ghent. The code-switches that occurred cannot directly be ascribed to a lack in linguistic competence since both parties seemed rather fluent in English, their common language of choice. However, they can be ascribed to an uneasiness that comes with the combination of a rather chaotic situation, characterised by disturbing phone calls, crying children and the hesitant conversation, and having to handle it in a foreign language. The switches that occur in this conversation can be divided into two categories: those that are a result of changes in frame and footing and those that can be labelled as normal non-fluency. The full transcription can be found under Annex 1.
In order to analyse this extract, it is necessary to take a closer look at Goffman’s theoretical concepts of frame and footing, and to the conversational functions that are enacted by code- switching according to Gumperz. Slembrouck (2009) defines the notion of frame, based on the conceptions of Goffman, as follows:
Frame is a productive concept for connecting, at one end, (i) space as something which is already there before any activity begins and as something which is often designed and equipped to routinely embody the triggers for certain activities, with normative expectations, and courses of action that ‘typically’ unfold, and at the other end, (ii) space as a situational/interactional entity which is inhabited, appropriated, and (re)configured by occupants/interactants during (and for the purposes of) social activities. (Slembrouck, 2009, p. 387)
The first part of the definition applies to the physical space as it has been equipped to check in guests and to provide information, complete with computers, a check-in desk etc. The space is also recognised as such by all participants, which facilitates focussed conversations. The second part of the definition applies to the situation and the conversations that emerge from this situation. This concept is perfectly illustrated by the first few turns of the following conversation. Speaker one (S1) is the receptionist and speaker two (S2) is the guest.
1 S1: Hi 2 S2: Hi it is front desk here? 3 S1: Yeah (3) So what’s your last name?
In the first turn, the receptionist welcomes the guest. The reply of the guest implies a verification of the physical frame. The receptionist starts the check-in conversation by asking the guest’s name. Their presence in the physical frame of the reception and recognition of the frame as such, are the cues that enable the emergence of the check-in conversation.
26
Related to the notion of frame is the concept of footing. Goffman (1981) describes this as the alignment, position or stance of participants in relation to what is said or to the people who say it. Participants in conversations constantly do positioning work, which is often described as ‘changes in footing’. According to Goffman (1981),
[a] change in footing implies a change in the alignment we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance. A change in our footing is another way of talking about a change in our frame of events. (p. 128)
These changes in footing imply transformations in participant roles. Goffman distinguishes between speaker roles and recipient roles. In the latter, he discerns addressed and unaddressed recipients, as well as ratified and unratified recipients. These roles are in a complex relation to one another and constitute more of a continuum than opposite poles. Since this is not the focus of this paper, I will not elaborate on these concepts and their implications in much detail, but I will provide a short and simplified explanation of the recipient roles since they play a role in the code-switches we will analyse. Ratified participants have an official status as participants and are entitled to be in the physical frame. Their presence is often acknowledged by the other participants in various ways, though this is not necessary. Even though they are ratified participants, they do not necessarily constantly take part in the conversation. Unratified participants are those who find themselves in the ‘full physical arena’ (Goffman, 1981, p. 136) in which the conversation takes place, but have no official status in it. They are often classified as ‘overhearers’ or ‘eavesdroppers’. Addressed recipients are the participants to whom the speaker’s utterances are directed. In case of a prototypical dyadic conversation where two people are involved, the addressed hearer is also the ratified hearer. In situations with more than two participants, the ratified hearers can be addressed, e.g. through the speaker’s gaze. This recipient is thus the addressed hearer. The other ratified hearers, at whom the utterance is not directed, are the unaddressed hearers.
Shifts in footing can cause shifts in participant roles, especially with regards to addresseehood. What is important for our analysis, is that Goffman (1981, p. 126) postulates that changes in footing are very often marked by code-switching, whether the switches are switches in style or in language. They are an indicator of a changed situation, i.e. a changed conversational frame, or a changed alignment of participants to the frame or to other participants.
27
The following turns, derived from the annexed transcription, are all examples of code-switches that indicate a change in footing.
24 S1: Parking is twelve fifty (.)
27 S1: Euh yes of course (3)
28 S3:
31 S3: Yes euhm here (5) so euhm {telephone rings}
47 S3:
62 S3: =Is on is on
80 S3: I only know they’re coming around every twenty minutes (.) it’s bus eight and euh
82 S3: Euh I will I will also print your
In most of these cases, the dyadic conversation between the receptionist and the guest is transformed into a triadic conversation where a second receptionist is involved. The participation of the second receptionist is often required when there is an uncertainty, when help is needed or when the other receptionist needs to take over. Up until turn 24 for example,
28
the receptionist had been conversing with the guest in English. When she hands him a hundred- euro bill, he needs to verify with his colleague if the hotel accepts this. He does so in Dutch, their mutual mother tongue.
22 S2: =Or (2) I see I pay the parking space (.) here?
23 S1: Yes.
24 S1: Parking is twelve fifty (.)
25 S3:
26 S2: Do you have a map of Ghent?
This code-switch, which bears Gumperz’ conversational function of addressee specification (1982, p. 77), transforms the guest from a ratified, addressed recipient into a ratified, unaddressed recipient. The role of the second receptionist undergoes the reverse transformation: she becomes a ratified, addressed recipient. These role shifts are clear signs of a change in footing. It could be argued that the receptionist creates a second, smaller situational frame with his colleague within which he asks for information, next to the dominant situational frame of the check-in conversation. Both frames take place in the physical frame of the reception setting, with the front office desk almost functioning as a language barrier: conversations behind the desk between addressed, ratified participants occur in Dutch. As was mentioned earlier, Gumperz’ attributes the function of addressee specification to these kinds of switches. He claims that these enable the dominant conversational frame to remain intact while side conversations are going on. This is applicable to the check-in conversation, because in turn 26, the guest draws the receptionist’s attention back to them after the interruption and the conversation immediately resumes in English.
All the other turns that involve code-switching, as they are mentioned above, occur according to the same mechanisms. The receptionists switch to Dutch to instruct each other or ask each other questions, after which the conversation with the guest is picked up again without further issues.
In turn 31, the same mechanisms are at stake. However, even though the code-switch to Dutch is still an indication of a change in footing, it could be argued that the switch is caused by a
29
frame break, i.e. the phone that keeps ringing. The break is short-lived and the conversation immediately resumes in English.
30 S1: So we are here?
31 S3: Yes euhm here (5) so euhm {telephone rings}
32 S2: Euh is it possible to take a bus or <1> something ?
In his questionnaire (Annex 2.4), the receptionist, whose mother tongue is Dutch, indicated his knowledge of English as ‘well’. Within this context, this should be more than enough to maintain a check-in conversation in English. It can be concluded that these switches cannot be ascribed to a lack of proficiency in English, but are instead used as a tool to keep the frame with the guest intact while having a conversation on the side. Having these side conversations in English would probably feel uneasy to both receptionists since neither of them have English as their mother tongue. Moreover, both receptionists often keep their eyes on the computer screen or on paper work while talking to each other. Not selecting the addressed recipient with a gaze or eye contact, hampers the intended continuation of the conversation. Specifying the addressed recipient through code-switching, resolves that issue. Obviously, people who only speak English would not switch between languages in these situations. Therefore, while the switches are a result of the receptionist’s linguistic background, it arguably cannot be said that language knowledge plays a large role in this conversation.
6.2.2 Normal non-fluency
The only other type of switches that arise in this check-in conversation, can be labelled as normal non-fluency or normal disfluency. In turns 33, 47, 55, 62 and 80, one or two Dutch words slip into the conversation, such as ‘ook’, ‘daar’ and ‘je hebt’. This is a normal phenomenon when dealing with multiple languages at the same time. The switches are too short to be denominated as a part of mixed discourse (Gardner-Chloros, 2009, p. 1), where two or more languages are used and intertwined for no apparent reason. They often occur together with hesitations, repetitions and prolongations and are thus part of normal human speech. Especially in turn 62, it becomes clear how the Dutch utterance is intertwined with repetitions, i.e. ‘is on is on’, and hesitations, until the receptionist decides to call in the help of a colleague in Dutch.
30
Hence, these switches arguably do not arise from linguistic incompetence; they are a normal phenomenon in natural, unregulated speech in a foreign language.
60 S3: Yeah you have euhm you have euhm yeah it’s really easy euhm the cabs with the company on the car.
61 S2: Oh the company on the car=
62 S3: =Is on is on
63 S1: So the best taxi is [org1] taxi.
There were no attestations of similar cases with other receptionists in other hotels. This is probably due to the fact that receptionists often have to communicate the same kind of information to guests, which results in an almost fixed pattern of conversation. This leaves less room for this kind of normal non-fluency. The fact that the receptionists in this conversation are interns with less experience, gives their utterances a more natural character; their expressions are not yet fixed.
6.3 Code-switching during conversations with colleagues
Having looked at code-switches during conversations with guests, it is now time to consider switches that appear in conversations with colleagues. Since the receptionists in Ghent all speak Dutch, there is no reason for them to code-switch during communication among colleagues, at least not the kind of code-switching that switches between languages and not between styles. However, there are two attestations of code-switching during a conversation between a receptionist and the hotel’s handyman, who is not proficient in Dutch. Speaker 1 (S1) is the receptionist and speaker two (S2) is the hotel’s handyman.
1 S1: Ah [S2] (.) [first name1] asked if you could euh (.) if you could (.)
2 S2: But I already did it.
3 S1: Yes but [first name1] asked if you could do it again.
4 S2: Ah because of the rain? Because if after snow rain (.) then ice.
5 S1: Yes I think so.
31
6 S2: Where is the guy?
7 S1: The
In the first turn of this excerpt, the receptionist struggles with the translation of a Dutch expression. Instead of explaining the concept in English, she uses the Dutch expression. This is a typical case of what Lüdi (2003) calls ‘translinguistic wording’ (Lüdi, 2003, p. 178 as cited in Gardner-Chloros, 2009, p. 161). He claims that this is a well-known strategy which is often found in the communication of non-native speakers. It is used to communicate the meaning of words or constructions when the equivalent in the target language is unknown. In this particular case, the receptionist struggles with the translation of ‘strooien’ (to sprinkle). The actual expression ‘zout strooien’ (to salt, to sprinkle salt), has become less common in Dutch and has been replaced by the verb ‘strooien’ alone, which has absorbed the meaning of the entire construction in this context (Van Dale Online, n.d. ; Van Acker, 2017). This implied meaning is difficult to communicate in another language, which causes her to switch to Dutch and subsequently back to English. A similar case can be detected in turn 7, where the receptionist does not know the English equivalent for ‘stagiaire’ (intern). The lack of hesitations and repetitions, which are clearly present in turn 1, indicate that she did not actively reflect on this choice and it thus happened naturally. This might suggest that these switches are a rather common practice.
Since these are the only occurrences of code-switching between colleagues in Ghent, this cannot be used to draw conclusions. Given that there are no such attestations in conversations with guests, we can only suspect that this practice happens to a lesser extent. This phenomenon will be further explored into detail in the section about Brussels.
In conclusion, all observed receptionists speak natively Dutch and are very proficient in English. This results in conversations with guests where there is no need for code-switching to convey a message, since the receptionists are perfectly able to maintain conversations in one of these three languages. The only attestations of code-switching are due to changes in frame and footing or are just normal dysfluent characteristics of natural speech. Even though these switches are a direct consequence of being multilingual, it cannot be claimed that language knowledge has a lot of influence on these practises. It can be suggested that code-switching is more common and natural during conversations with colleagues. Nevertheless, the lack of more such attestations prevents us from drawing that conclusion with certainty.
32
Chapter 7: Code-switching at hotel receptions in Brussels
7.1 General language profile
Based on the answers to the questionnaires, it is possible to draw up a general linguistic profile of receptionists in Brussels, concerning their competences in different languages and their language use at the front office desk. The tendencies and phenomena that will be discussed in a next section, demand a division between the receptionists who have Dutch as a native language, and those who have another mother tongue. The observed group of receptionists contains six native Dutch speakers, as opposed to seven with another native language.
The native Dutch speakers in Brussels all seem to be very fluent foreign language users. They all rate their competence in English to be very good in all domains, i.e. speaking, reading, understanding and writing. Moreover, almost no difference in proficiency in French can be detected: all receptionists rate their French skills as good as their English skills, except for one person who rates their French skills as ‘good’. All five of them master basic competences in a fourth or fifth language, i.e. German and Spanish.
When asked what languages they use the most at the front office desk, the answers show a rather uniform picture: in most cases, the conversations with guests allow for an equal distribution of English, French and Dutch. One receptionist, who rated their French competences slightly lower than their English skills, claimed to predominantly use English and no other languages. It was found that she deliberately steered her conversations towards an all- English course. Figure 3 shows the response rate for the languages English, French, Dutch and Spanish.
33
Most frequently used languages at hotel receptions in Brussels by native Dutch speakers 6
5
4
3
2
1
0 English French Dutch Spanish
Figure 3: Frequently used languages in Brussels (by native Dutch speakers)
When confronted with communication problems with guests, only one of them claims to sometimes use combinations of languages to come to a mutual understanding. The others assert that they do not encounter a lot of communicative problems and if they do, they use Google Translate, sign language or they seek help from their colleagues.
The answers of the receptionists with a mother tongue other than Dutch, draw a rather deviant picture of the general language profile. Their native languages vary from French to Spanish, Italian, Lingala, Arabic and Tagalog. Apart from two people, foreigners without any knowledge of Dutch whatsoever, they all claim to have basic skills in Dutch, enough to understand the language and maintain a simple conversation. When it comes to French, no clear tendency can be detected. The proficiency rates from basic knowledge to a good and a very good command. In three of the seven cases, French is the native language or one of the native languages when raised bilingually. The English picture is much more uniform: all respondents claim to be proficient or very proficient in all domains. Apart from the two receptionists who do not know Dutch, all receptionists master five to six languages, a rather impressive number. These always include Dutch, French and English, completed with either native languages such as Italian, Arabic, Lingala and Tagalog, or basic skills in extra foreign languages such as German, Spanish and Russian.
When asked what languages they use the most at the front desk, they all mention English and French. Those with basic to good skills in Dutch claim to use this language almost equally as much as English and French. The receptionists with Spanish knowledge also frequently use this during front office conversations. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the response rate.
34
Most frequently used languages at hotel receptions in Brussels by non-native Dutch speakers 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 English French Dutch Spanish Italian
Figure 4: Frequently used languages in Brussels (by receptionists with other native languages than Dutch)
The answers to what kind of communication problems they experience and how they solve them, are similar to what has been mentioned before: sign language, translation websites etc. Nevertheless, there were some interesting answers that reveal opposite attitudes towards language use at the reception. One non-native Dutch speaker who masters six languages (Annex 3.5) explains: “As I am still learning Dutch, it is not always easy to make my self understand, specially with people from The Netherlands. Other aspect is that the fact that Belgians switch languages as soon as they realise that the other person is foreigner discourage me” (sic). It is clear that this man takes pride in his language knowledge and feels discouraged when others notice he is struggling. This translates into the fact that there are no attestations of code- switching during conversations between him and guests, even though he knows a lot of languages and is not equally proficient in every single one of them. On the other hand, the next quote implies a different attitude towards code-switching (Annex 3.12): “Very good communication with the guests, with a smile and a greeting with quality.” This statement throws a new light onto the fact that this receptionist was observed to be a regular code-switcher in conversations with guests. He clearly attaches more importance to the fact that his message is well received than to the linguistic tools he uses. This contrasts with the earlier mentioned receptionist, who attaches greater importance to how his language use comes across. This is already a first indication that attitudes towards code-switching influence its use and practice.
35
7.2 Linguistic behaviour of native Dutch speakers
7.2.1 Code-switching during conversations with guests
As mentioned before, the observed receptionists are very proficient in Dutch, French and English. Hence, it comes as no surprise that most conversations are held monolingually, with an exception from the greeting, which was discussed in chapter five.
In general, the native Dutch speaking receptionists converse with their guests in one consistent language. Their adherence to one language is demonstrated in the next bit of data. The receptionist is checking in a guest in French and wants to know if he prefers a room with a bath or with a shower. The first speaker (S1) is the receptionist, the second speaker (S2) is the guest. French utterances are underlined.
1 S1: Voici votre carte d’identité. 2 S2: Thanks
3 S1: Est-ce que vous préférez une chambre avec un bain ou avec une douche monsieur?
4 S2: Pardon?
5 S1: Si vous préférez une chambre avec un bain ou avec une douche ? (2) Un bain ou une douche ? (1) Est-ce que vous vou-=
6 S2: =Ah une douche pardon.
Instead of using another language when it was clear that the guest did not understand the question, the receptionists proceeds in French consistently. It would have been logical to rephrase the question in English to come to a mutual understanding, especially since the guest used an English utterance himself in turn 2.
There are some cases where the receptionists rely on their linguistic repertoire to show politeness. In this case, they code-switch not because their language knowledge does not allow them to continue the conversation in one language, but to accommodate to the guest’s language or dialect. According to Giles and Powesland (1975), people converge their language use, whether it be voice pitch, intensity, dialect or language, towards the characteristics of their interlocutor’s speech in order to encourage amiable feelings towards one another. Gardner- Chloros (2009) states that code-switching can be a manifestation of such a process of convergence. This phenomenon is witnessed in some check-in conversations between natively Dutch speaking receptionists and guests. In the following excerpt, a Spanish guest comes up to
36
the front office to gather information about the shuttle bus to the airport. The receptionist (Annex 3.6) remembers that the guest speaks Spanish. Speaker one (S1) is the receptionist, speaker two (S2) is the Spanish guest.
1 S1: Hello (.)
2 S2:
3 S1: The next shuttlebus is at (3) three thirty sir (.) so in twenty minutes.
4 S2: Twenty minutes (.) okay thank you.
5 S1: You’re welcome sir have a nice day (.)
In turn 1 and turn 5, the receptionist greets and says goodbye to the guest in both English and Spanish. She did not list Spanish as one of the languages she masters in her questionnaire. It is likely that she accompanies her Spanish utterances with an English equivalent to indicate that she would prefer to continue the conversation in English. Nevertheless, she does make an effort to accommodate to the guest’s language in order to minimise the social distance between them.
The next excerpt is a transcription of a conversation between the same receptionist and a Dutch couple. Since all people involved in this conversation speak Dutch, the conversation happens in Dutch as well. Nevertheless, the couple speaks the Dutch variant of the Netherlands, while the receptionist speaks Flemish, the Dutch variant of Belgium. After the check-in, the receptionist offers the couple a glass of champagne or some orange juice. Speaker one (S1) is the receptionist, speaker two (S2) is the Dutch man, speaker three (S3) is the Dutch woman.
1 S1: Dit is jullie kamernummer (.) kan ik jullie voorts nog een glaasje bubbels of een beetje jus d’orange aanbieden?
2 S2: Nou kijk eens aan (.) doe mij dan maar een glaasje bubbels.
3 S3: En voor mij wat jus d’orange alsjeblieft.
4 S1: Zeker (4) Mochten jullie een hapje willen eten, het restaurant is hier om de hoek (.) wij hebben ook een sushibar dus mocht u willen kan u daar ook eens een kijkje nemen.
5 S1: Hartstikke bedankt.
Even though the couple and the receptionists speak the same language, they do speak different variants that include a slightly different vocabulary. The receptionist accommodates to the
37
guests’ variant through code-switching. The clearest example occurs in turn 1, where the receptionist offers some ‘jus d’orange’ (orange juice). This is a French loan word that has entered in the variant of the Netherlands and is used exclusively to denote orange juice. In Flemish, the words ‘appelsiensap’, ‘sinaasappelsap’ or the general ‘fruitsap’ (fruit juice) are common but ‘jus d’orange’ is almost never used (Taalunie, n.d.). The fact that the receptionist refers to the orange juice with the equivalent from the Netherlands, shows their accommodation to the guests’ variant. The rest of the excerpt contains more similar examples, although less clear. ‘Voorts’ (further), ‘een hapje eten’ (to grab a bite to eat) and ‘een kijkje nemen’ (to have a look) are all expressions that are occasionally used in Flemish, but sound more formal and lean more towards the Dutch variant. This phenomenon can be denominated as ‘crossing’, which is described by Rampton (1995) as “code-alternation by people who are not accepted members of the group” (p. 280) and “switching into languages that are not generally thought to belong to you” (ibid.).
These examples prove that even though a speaker masters his languages nearly perfectly, code- switching is still a common feature in multilingual conversations. The switches are not employed to mask any linguistic deficiencies. Instead, this specific accommodation strategy functions as a bridge between two different languages or variants of languages. It enriches the conversation and social mechanisms.
7.2.2 Code-switching during conversations with colleagues
Even though conversations with guests show some attestations of code-switching, most of them still occur monolingually. Conversations with colleagues on the other hand, give rise to more occasions of multilingual language use. In the next excerpt, the receptionist (Annex 3.6) is in conversation with a man who delivers a package for a guest at the receptions desk. Speaker one (S1) is the person who brings the package, speaker two (S2) is the receptionist. The conversation is held in a mixture of French and Dutch. The French parts are underlined, the Dutch parts are in italics.
1 S1: Hallo. 2 S2: Bonjour. 3 S1: J’ai un paquet pour un client de vous. 4 S2: Een pakje ? Je n’attends rien (.) Attend je vais vérifier. {goes to the back to check} Ah ja (.) c’est correct (.) tu peux le placer ici.
38
5 S1: Parfait (3) alors une signature ici en dan deze voor jullie. 6 S2: Oke da’s goed (.) dankuwel.
In this conversation, we see that the receptionist, although addressed in Dutch, replies in French. After the French reply, she begins her answer in Dutch, only to switch immediately back to French in turn 4. In turn 5, her interlocutor changes from French to Dutch mid-sentence, without any hesitation or repetition. This indicates that this is most likely not a deliberate choice, but that the switch happens rather naturally. The conversation ends in Dutch again in turn 6. Myers- Scotton (1983) calls these kind of switches, where there seems to be no apparent motivation, switching as an unmarked choice. We cannot claim that in this conversation, code-switching is intrinsic to people’s identities like in Myers-Scotton’s study. However, it can be argued that the unmarked switches adhere to situations of an informal register (Gardner-Chloros, 1991). It is clear that this conversation had a more informal character than conversations with guests.
The following excerpt is a conversation between three receptionists. The second receptionist (S2; Annex 3.2) and third receptionist (S3; Annex 3.1) are native Dutch speakers. The first receptionist (S1; Annex 3.3) is a native speaker of French and Lingala, with basic skills in Dutch. S1 and S2 are both fluent in French and English. S3 has a strong preference for English, while S1 does not have any preference and is equally competent in both languages. The French utterances are underlined, the Dutch utterances are in italics.
1 S1: Non c’est ça. 2 S2: C’est vraiment (1) ça ça ne marche pas (.) comme ça hein. 3 S3: Ik ga een koffietje halen (.) [S2] wilt gij ook iets? 4 S2: Un thé s’il te plaît. 5 S3: Wat ? 6 S2: Thé (.) un thé s’il te plaît. 7 S3: Een theetje ? (.) Dewelke? 8 S2: Maakt niet uit (.) ik drink letterlijk alle thees.
The first two receptionists are engaged in a rather informal conversation in French. They are interrupted by the third receptionist in Dutch. This is a clear case of addressee specification (Gumperz, 1982, p. 77): one interlocutor is singled out by a deviant choice of language. In turn 4, the second receptionist replies in French. This is surprising since both receptionists are native Dutch speakers and have a habit of conversing in Dutch together. We would expect her to reply in Dutch since she changes her alignment vis-à-vis the interlocutors. Changes in footing in this kind of multilingual situation would normally be signalled by means of a code-switch. It could be argued that the previous conversation in French still lingers on, but in turn 6, after yet another
39
Dutch utterance, she again replies in French. It is only in turn 8 that she eventually switches to Dutch. It can be argued that the second receptionist wants to keep the first receptionist included in the conversation, even though the question is not directed at them. Another similar example occurs during a work-related conversation between the same three receptionists. While working, all three of them had been conversing necessary information, sometimes with large intervals. At a certain point, after a few minutes without talking, the following conversation arose.
1 S3: Heb jij die lijst met invoices al afgewerkt? 2 S2: Pas tout (.) niet alles.
These are again the two natively Dutch receptionists. The second receptionist answers a Dutch question in French and Dutch, even though the answer is directed at a native Dutch speaker. Gardner-Chloros (2009) argues that “where the speaker is a balanced bilingual […] code- switching may be used deliberately as a compromise strategy, when addressing others of varying competences and preferences” (p. 15). Even though the receptionist is not a native bilingual, she does have great competence in French. Both the other receptionists have enough skills in Dutch, French and English to be able to understand her if she had answered monolingually. Nevertheless, she still choses to say the exact same utterance twice, in different languages, to explicitly address both of her colleagues. Hence, this bit of data shows that even non-balanced bilinguals use compromise strategies to facilitate conversations. Being a fluent second language speaker, surrounded by less fluent speakers, seems to be sufficient. Gardner- Chloros, Charles & Cheshire (2000) argue that repeating an utterance in another language is a common bilingual practice. It is employed to break up the monotony of a monolingual discourse.
7.3 Linguistic behaviour of receptionists with native tongues other than Dutch
7.3.1 Code-switching during conversations with guests
As was the case in Ghent, normal non-fluency and changes in frame and footing are important instigators for code-switching in Brussels as well. Apart from that, we will examine two other contexts in Brussels where code-switching appears regularly during conversations with guests, namely in non-check-in conversations and in conversations where the receptionist’s personal linguistic attitude clearly surfaces.
40
7.3.1.1 Normal non-fluency
Despite the overall tendency to reduce code-switching to the minimum – a recurring theme in the three discussed groups of receptionists, there are four situations in which code-switching is more dominant than in comparable situations with native Dutch speakers. For starters, there are more attestations of normal non-fluency. In some English check-in conversations, two natively French receptionists had the habit of slipping back to French in interjections or very short, standard utterances. When handing over the passport or a room key to the guest, they would often choose to accompany this gesture with ‘s’il vous plaît’ or ‘voici’ instead of the English equivalent. The addressing of the guest equally happens in French, e.g. ‘Here is your key monsieur’. Their skills in English are more than sufficient enough to know these words, so a lack of competence can be excluded as a reason for these switches. As said, they are more likely to be normal dysfluency. However, it must be mentioned that receptionists with another native language than French or Dutch, never do this. There are no occurrences of receptionists in the same situation using Spanish, Arabic or Tagalog equivalents. Since they can repress such tendencies, it can be argued that the ‘slips’ of the native French speakers are not totally uncontrolled and have some motivation. One explanation might be that they feel allowed to do so because French is an official language in Brussels, whilst the others are not.
7.3.1.2 Code-switching due to changes in frame and footing
Changes in frame and footing also give rise to occasions of code-switching during conversations with guests. This has already been discussed in the chapter about Ghent, where the predominant part of the observed switches during conversations with guests, was due to addressing another person in the frame. This change in footing was marked by a code-switch. The same reasoning applies in the following excerpts. An American guest informs the receptionist that he does not have the right adapter for European power outlets and asks to use one from the reception. The receptionist brings one but it still does not fit. The receptionist (Annex 3.13) is natively French with very good skills in English. Speaker one (S1) is the guest, speaker two (S2) is the natively French receptionist, speaker three (S3; Annex 3.11) is a third receptionist. The French utterances are underlined.
1 S1: No that’s still not the right one. 2 S2: It’s not? 3 S1: No see {shows his charger} it doesn’t fit.
41
4 S2: Oh euh (1) well we we (.) we don’t have another one. 5 S1: So where can I get one of those? Is there a shop in the neighbourhood? 6 S2: I I euh I don’t really think you can buy it in the neighbourhood (.) I euh well (.) I really don’t know
In line 6, the receptionist switches from English to French to address her colleague, a phenomenon which we earlier named ‘addressee specification’ (Gumperz, 1982, p. 77). The alignment towards the guest and the colleague changes, turning the guest into an unaddressed recipient and the colleague into an addressed one. Rather than continuing this side-conversation in French, the second receptionist recognises the principal frame of the conversation between the guest and her colleague and decides to direct her answer immediately at the guest in line 7. This becomes clear by the use of English in her answer.
The following excerpt is likewise an example of code-switching as a mark of changes in footing and alignment. A guest wants to pick up his package but it has not arrived yet. Speaker one (S1) is the guest, speaker two (S2) is the natively French receptionist (Annex 3.13), speaker three (S3) is a native Tagalog speaker with very good skills in French and English (Annex 3.11).
1 S1: Hi (.) there was a package delivered here for me please. 2 S2: Sure (.) on what name? 3 S1: [S1/last] 4 S2: [S1/last] (.) I’ll have a look sir {goes to the back to check}. I’m sorry sir (.) there is nothing for you there. 5 S1: Are you sure? It should be he- here= 6 S2: =yes (.) well maybe it’s here {looks under the desk} (2) No (.) nothing. 7 S3:
In turn 7, a colleague intervenes in the conversation. It must be added that during the observation, these colleagues always communicated in French, the mother tongue of S2 and the second-best language of S3, together with English, according to their questionnaires. Therefore,
42
it is striking that the colleague is addressed in English in turn 7. S3 probably does this to keep the guest informed about the ongoing actions. Hence, in this case, the change in alignment is not marked by a code-switch. However, the French reply in line 8 shows that the alignment truly shifted, with the utterance only being addressed to the colleague. The shift back to English in the same line demonstrates that the guest is again the focal point of the conversation.
7.3.1.3 Code-switching in non-check-in conversations
Third, a non-check-in conversation was observed in which code-switching seemed to be more dominant than in check-in conversations with the same receptionist. This leads us to believe that the rather fixed pattern of a check-in conversation allows the receptionist to maintain a conversation in one language, whereas code-switching seems to be the easiest solution to come to a mutual understanding in the unregulated form of a non-check-in conversation. In this case, linguistic competence does have an influence on code-switching, in the sense that people who are not entirely competent in one language, tend to use other languages to come to their rescue.
In the next excerpt, the guest has been informed by another receptionist that he booked a reservation at another hotel with a similar name by accident. He asks a receptionist for more information. The receptionist (Annex 3.3) speaks French and Lingala as a mother tongue, is proficient in English and has basic skills in Dutch. Speaker one (S1) is the guest, speaker two (S2) is the receptionist.
1 S1: Hallo (.) blijkbaar sta ik in het verkeerde hotel (.) wat moet ik nu doen? 2 S2: Euh welk hotel moet u zijn? 3 S1: [org1] (.) hoe kan ik daar geraken van hieruit? 4 S2: euhm (1) you can take the train 5 S1: En wanneer rijdt die trein? 6 S2: euhm (.) dat weet ik niet. 7 S1: En uw collega zei dat ik niet kan omboeken (1)is da echt zo? (1) is er geen enkele kans dat ik hier kan blijven? 8 S2: Wij zijn euh (1) fu- fully booked tonight (.) unfortunately. 9 S1: Ja goed (.) en hoe geraak ik het beste aan het station? Gaat dat te voet? 10 S2: euh het is euh mogelijk te voet euh maar (.) euh maybe a taxi will be better.
43
11 S1: Kan u dan zo snel mogelijk een taxi bellen voor mij? 12 S2: Zeker meneer.
In this excerpt, the receptionist regularly switches between English, her better language, and Dutch, even though the guest consistently speaks in Dutch. Lines 8 and 12 even contain intra- sentential switching. The hesitations and repetitions right before a switch to English are indications of the fact that the Dutch equivalents do not come naturally to the mind.
In the next excerpt, the same receptionist is checking in a guest in Dutch. Speaker one (S1) is the receptionist, speaker two (S2) is the guest.
1 S1: Bonsoir monsieur (.) checking in? 2 S2: Yes (.) 3 S1: Est-ce que je peux voir votre passport? 4 S2: Oui {gives passport}. 5 S1: Hier is uw kaart alstublieft (2) u verblijft bij ons twee nachten? 6 S2: Klopt. 7 S1: Ik zie dat de bedrijf uw reservatie al betaald heeft (12) uw kamer is op de derde verdieping (.) u kan daar de lift nemen (1) de ontbijt is van zes uur dertig tot tien uur dertig=. 8 S2: =Oke=. 9 S1: =En er is ook gratis wifi op de kamer. 10 S2: Oh (.) en wat is de code? 11 S1: Geen code (.) u kan zo verbinden. 12 S2: Oke bedankt. 13 S1: Fijne avond nog.
In this standard check-in conversation, the receptionist starts of in French, her native tongue, but switches to Dutch as soon as she sees the passport that indicates that the guest comes from the Netherlands. She later declared to accommodate to Dutch after seeing the identity because this is easier for the guest. Unlike the previous excerpt, in this conversation, there are no problems with the adherence to Dutch, apart from some inconsistencies with the article. This is due to the fixed pattern of the check-in conversation, which allows the receptionists to use standard Dutch phrases.
44
7.3.1.4 Individual attitudes and preferences
We have already discussed that non-native Dutch speakers, who admittedly code-switch more than their natively Dutch colleagues, show a general tendency to code-switch as less as possible. However, it is important to keep in mind that this is only a tendency and is often based on personal behaviour and that exceptions exist. In the following part, we will discuss the surprising linguistic behaviour of a native Spanish and Arabic speaker (Annex 3.12), with very good skills in English and French and basic competences in Dutch. In his questionnaire, he stated to never encounter communication problems with guests and that everything can be solved with a smile. During the observations, it became clear that the largest part of his conversations occurred in one language, predominantly French, closely followed by English and Spanish. However, in conversations with Dutch or Flemish guests, he invokes as many languages as needed to bridge his Dutch insufficiencies. This stands in sharp contrast with his colleagues who try to avoid switching when talking with Dutch speaking guests or avoid Dutch altogether because of their insufficient proficiency. In the following excerpt, the receptionist welcomes a guest from the Netherlands, together with a natively French receptionist (Annex 3.13). The first speaker (S1) is the Dutch guest, the second speaker (S2) is the natively French receptionist and the third speaker (S3) is the natively Spanish-Arabic receptionist.
1 S1: Hallo: 2 S2: Hello 3 S1: In check? 4 S2: Yes what’s your name please? 5 S1: [S1/last] 6 S3: Voor één nacht? 7 S1: Klopt. 8 S3: Jouw identiteit of jouw paspoort? 9 S1: mmh? 10 S2: Your identity card or your passport sir. 11 S1: Nou (.) gelukkig heb ik die bij me {gives passport to S3, S2 leaves}. 12 S3: Alsjeblieft (.) een handtekening (5) jouw kamer (.) tweede verdiep (1) ontbijt van zes uur dertig tot tien uur dertig. 13 S1: En er is een busje naar de luchthaven toch? 14 S3: euhm (1) yes. 15 S1: Dank u wel.
45
In this excerpt, the receptionist does not employ a lot of code-switching, but seems to let the guest’s comfort dominate. He notices the Dutch origin of the guest and takes over from his colleague, who had been holding the conversation in English, which is more comfortable for her. Even when the guest does not seem to understand the Dutch utterances of the receptionist, as is demonstrated in lines 8 and 9, and the other receptionist intervenes in English in line 10, he still continues to use short and basic Dutch utterances. It is only in line 14, when he seems to be taken by surprise by the guest’s question, that a switch to English happens, preceded by a hesitation. This supports the previously mentioned statement that code-switching is more employed when the fixed conversation pattern is exceeded. Hence, it is a direct consequence of limited linguistic skills. Whereas this Spanish-Arabic front office employee seems to take pride in his multilingual repertoire in this excerpt, in the next one code-switching is more prevalent. Speaker one (S1) is the same Spanish-Arabic receptionist, speaker two (S2) is a Flemish guest.
1 S1: Good afternoon (.) may I help you? 2 S2: Euh (1) is het mogelijk een taxi te hebben naar Brussel Centrum? 3 S1: Of course (.) waar naartoe? 4 S2: To Brussels centrum. 5 S1: Hoeveel personen? 6 S2: euh vier (1) vier. 7 S1: {calls taxi} So that’s done. 8 S2: Do I need to wait here or euh? 9 S1: Ja daar dank u. 10 S2: Thank you.
In this transcription, we notice four code-switches on behalf of the receptionist, inter-sentential as well as intra-sentential. The guest initiates the constant switching in line 2, by replying in a different language than the one in which she was addressed. As Clyne (2003) argues, switching once creates the possibility of continuing to switch between a variety of languages. The fact that the opportunity for switching is already created by the guest, is probably the reason why the receptionist does not seem preoccupied by language choices and switches to whatever language comes naturally at the moment. This happens to a point at which there are even intra- sentential switches in line 3. The switches that occur in this excerpt do not seem to make up for a lack of competence in Dutch. On the contrary, the utilisation of Dutch comes across as an enrichment of the talk, as to accommodate as much as possible to the guest’s language. The receptionist treats English as the standard language and Dutch as a nice addition. He does not use English to make up for his Dutch incompetence. That is a completely different attitude
46
compared to what we’ve discussed so far. Moreover, the comparison of the two transcriptions shows that the amount of switches performed by the same receptionists, can differ according to the situation.
We can argue that the act of code-switching performed by non-native Dutch receptionists is not only a case of linguistic incompetence, as was proven by the comparison of check-in and non- check-in conversations, but also of personal attitudes and preferences and is context-specific. This is proven by the fact that the receptionist in the last two excerpts demonstrates two different kinds of behaviour and attitudes towards code-switching in two different situations. The presence of a Dutch-speaking guest seems to be the most influential factor to instigate code- switching.
7.3.2 Code-switching during conversations with colleagues
Having discussed conversations between non-native Dutch speaking receptionists and guests, it is time to turn to conversations between colleagues, equally involving non-native Dutch speakers. Interestingly, it was observed that the disappearance of the fixed conversation pattern between receptionist and guest and the disappearance of the frame coincides with a rise in the amount of code-switching. Language choice during conversations with colleagues is directly related to matching linguistic repertoires. Therefore, it can be argued that in these contexts, linguistic repertoire plays a big role in code-switching.
A good example of how linguistic repertoire influences language choice during conversations with guests, is the following, very multilingual receptionist (Annex 3.5). According to his questionnaire, and confirmed by observations, he is a native Spanish-Italian bilingual, with very good skills in both English and Russian, good skills in French and a basic competence in Dutch. This extensive linguistic background allows him to always maintain conversations with guests in one consistent language, even in Dutch. No attestations of code-switching were observed. However, during conversations with colleagues, it was found that his skills enable him to be the flexible factor in the conversation, always adapting to the language of his interactor. Hence, the language in which collegial conversations are held, differ from colleague to colleague. Conversations with his Flemish co-worker, even though incredibly fluent in French and English herself, always occur in Dutch. The most striking example of this is the following excerpt. The conversation takes place in English. The guests want to leave their luggage and check-in later.
47
Speaker one (S1) is the receptionist, speaker two (S2) is the guest, speaker three (S3) is the Flemish receptionist (Annex 3.4).
1 S1: Hello. 2 S2: Hello (.) is it possible to leave our euh (.) our luggage here and check in later? 3 S1: Sure (.) how many pieces do you have? 4 S2: Euh four. 5 S1: And what’s your name? 6 S2: [S2/last] 7 S1: {attaches stickers to the luggage}
When the receptionist turns to his colleague for information in line 7, he does so in Dutch, the language he is the least fluent in, even though it would have been very easy and acceptable for him to keep speaking English. This demonstrates his habit to adhere to Dutch during conversations with this specific colleague.
The same native Spanish-Italian receptionist showed manifestations of linguistic insecurity with a natively French speaking colleague. The receptionist has better skills in English than in French and gravitates towards English, while also wanting to accommodate to his interlocutor. This gives rise to an uncertainty about their common language of communication and induces code-switching. The next excerpt is an example of this. Speaker one (S1) is the native French colleague, speaker two (S2) is the Spanish-Italian receptionist.
1 S1: [S2] (.) can you check if there are still euh (.) still two rooms left for tomorrow? 2 S2: Two rooms? I’ll check. (5) Yes but not together (1) one on the the first floor and the other on the second. 3 S1:
48
7 S1: I see (17)
The conversation starts off in English. The first code-switch in line 3 happens on behalf of the native French speaker, who switches back to his mother tongue French. This seems to be an automatic reaction since the conversation resumes in English after his return. In turn 5, there is another switch to French, as a surprise reaction to the malfunctioning of the computer. The receptionist reacts to that in French for the first time, but slips back to English for the word ‘restart’. This probably triggers the interlocutor to resume the conversation in English in line 7, only to turn back to French almost immediately. The receptionist ends the conversation in French. This back and forth switching demonstrates that there are no clear rules between these colleagues: the switching happens rather naturally. The lack of hesitations in between the switches suggests that this is their standard linguistic situation. There were two other receptionists who demonstrated almost identical linguistic behaviour, which is why they will not be discussed here.
Another receptionist (Annex 3.3), native speaker of Lingala and French, with very good skills in English and basic skills in Dutch, showed another type of code-switching behaviour. As discussed earlier, they held most conversations with guests monolingually, apart from some normal non-fluency and more code-switching during non-check-in conversations. However, during conversations with her colleagues, who were both native Dutch speakers, this receptionist used code-switching is such a common way, that it can be assumed that this is their norm. The following examples demonstrate intra-sentential code-switching.
(1) Da’s juist, ça va comme ça you know (2) He received my, comment on dit, my package (3) Je vais pipi doen (4) En, ça va? It goes very well here
These utterances are all truly observed expressions by the same receptionist when in conversation with Flemish colleagues, although not in the same consistent conversation. Example 1 shows intra-sentential switching between three different languages. However, it cannot be said that any language adds new information to the utterance. It appears the speaker only wants to variate the discourse (Gardner-Chloros, Charles & Cheshire, 2000). The same applies for the other examples, apart from example 2. There, the switch from English to French reinforces the message, i.e. the search for words. For all the other cases, it can be argued that
49
the switches happen not because of insufficient linguistic skills, but because of a need to either variate the discourse, or to include and accommodate to the Flemish colleagues, even though they are perfectly fluent in French.
Strikingly, this kind of switches on behalf of non-native Dutch speakers only occurs in situations where native Dutch speakers are involved. Thus, the statement that code-switching between colleagues with other mother languages than Dutch is the standard situation, needs to be nuanced. No occurrences of any type of code-switching were observed in contexts where all speakers had foreign native tongues. The observation of a shift with a native Tagalog (Annex 3.11) speaker, a native Spanish-Arabic speaker (Annex 3.12) and a native French speaker (Annex 3.13), showed intern communication exclusively in French, the native language of one receptionist and the third best language of the others. In another hotel, a native French (Annex 3.8) and a native Spanish speaker (Annex 3.9) communicated exclusively in English, even though the Spanish receptionist had skills in French.
These examples show that code-switching is very common in conversations between colleagues. This was also confirmed by the receptionist (Annex 3.3) who produced the earlier mentioned utterances in an almost mixed code. In an off the record conversation, she stated that when all employees are eating together, an abundance of languages are spoken. She evaluated this as “C’est la richesse ça”.
50
Chapter 8: Comparison and discussion
Having discussed the linguistic characteristics of each group of receptionists in each city separately, it is now time to bring these findings in discussion with each other and with the already existing literature on the theme. We will first focus on to what extent the linguistic repertoire of individual receptionists influence their linguistic behaviour, with a specific focus on code-switching. Second, we will draw a macro comparison between the findings of Ghent and Brussels, in relation to their sociolinguistic backgrounds, as has been discussed in chapter four. Furthermore, we will discuss the differences between conversations with guests and with colleagues at the front office desk. Finally, the role of English in these multilingual conversations will be briefly touched upon.
8.1 Relation between linguistic repertoire and code-switching
This part focusses on to what extent the receptionist’s individual linguistic repertoire influences their code-switching, considering the number of occurrences and the different types. Gardner- Chloros (2009) claims that “the behaviour of bilinguals can only be properly understood with some insider knowledge of the community and the circumstances where it is displayed” (p. 4). She adds that the speaker’s linguistic competence may or may not be an influential factor in their linguistic behaviour. Whereas in this paper, it cannot be said that the receptionists form a specific community in which we have to gain insider information in order to understand the practices, it does give insight in the circumstances in which the linguistic behaviour is displayed. The observed circumstances contain location, type of conversation and, most importantly, linguistic repertoire.
It is generally understood that language knowledge has an influence on code-switching. This appears in several studies such as the 2003 study of Milroy & Gordon, who consider factors attaching to the speaker as a great influence on code-switching, saying that “their competences in each variety, their social networks and relationships, their attitudes and ideologies, their self- perception and perception of others” (Milroy and Gordon, 2003 as cited in Gardner-Chloros, 2009, p. 43) influence switching. However, Gardner-Chloros (2009) states that, even though research about second language learners and foreign language speakers exists, there are only few studies about their code-switching. Hence, the observations that were found in this paper cannot be brought into comparison with a lot of existing data and results.
51
First and foremost, based on the observations and questionnaires, we can confirm that linguistic repertoire does indeed have an influence on code-switching. At first sight, we can make the unnuanced statement that the more languages belong to one’s linguistic repertoire, the more attestations of code-switching there are. This observation leaves aside the distinction between conversations with guests and co-workers, which will be discussed in a next part. The receptionists who master five or more languages, were observed to code-switch more, however only if their mother tongue is another language than Dutch. In cases where the receptionist masters five languages and is a native speaker of Dutch, there are no notable discrepancies compared to those who master fewer languages. This leads us to believe that it is not the number of languages in one’s linguistic repertoire that influences code-switching, at least not in more formal situations. On the contrary, it is the level of command that seems to be crucial, and especially the command of Dutch.
During conversations between non-native Dutch speakers and guests, the cases of code- switching in any kind of language were attestations of normal non-fluency, a consequence of changes in frame and footing, or due to a less ‘fixed’ conversational pattern or personal attitudes. The first two were also observed in conversations with native Dutch speakers, but the cases of normal non-fluency were clearly more numerously present in the first group. Even though the term ‘normal non-fluency’ implies that the slipping back to the mother tongue is normal linguistic behaviour when dealing with multiple languages at a time, it does seem more present in the talk of those who master five or more languages, whether or not the conversation was held in Dutch. During conversations between non-native Dutch speakers and guests, the cases of code-switching that involve the use of Dutch clearly show that the lack of Dutch competence instigates the switch. In that regard, we studied the case of a non-check-in conversation, where the receptionist clearly struggled to inform the guest in Dutch and regularly switches to English to complete the utterances. In another discussed case, the receptionist switched confidently between English and Dutch. His command of Dutch was basic, but he did not seem to use Dutch to hide his incompetence, but more as an enrichment of his talk, as to accommodate to the guest’s native language whenever he could.
During conversations with colleagues, the same tendency seems to appear: whenever non- native Dutch speaking receptionists find themselves in the company of native Dutch speakers, code-switching is employed to the extent that we can almost speak of a mixed variety. When in the company of receptionists who all do not speak Dutch as a mother tongue, there seemed to be an agreement to either speak English or French at all times, without code-switching.
52
This large influence of the level of command of Dutch can be related to the sociolinguistic situation in Brussels, which was discussed in chapter four. After all, the discussed group of receptionists who master five or more languages and are not native speakers of Dutch, all work in Brussels. It can be argued that these receptionists are aware of the connotation that comes with the use or non-use of Dutch. Since their job requires politeness towards costumers, it is only natural they want to avoid any negative association and therefore use Dutch as much as possible, even though their command of the language does not always allow for a fluent communication.
For all the natively Dutch speaking receptionists, the situation is different. Apart from the greeting and welcoming of the guest, almost all conversations with guests are held monolingually, whether they occur in Dutch, English or French. The exceptions to this observation are cases in which there is a change in footing and alignment, marked by code- switching, or when the receptionist is trying to establish closeness to the guest by including some utterances in their native language or variety. In no case, code-switching is used to cover up a language deficiency during conversations with guests.
The answer to the question to what extent a receptionist’s linguistic repertoire influences the use of code-switching, has to be formulated with a lot of nuances. The fact that a linguistic repertoire influences code-switching is undeniable. The influence of whether or not Dutch is the native language, is the best proof of this fact. However, the by speakers commonly believed notion that code-switching is a lazy option and is mostly used by people with lower education to hide linguistic deficiencies (Gardner-Chloros, 2009), is far from true. In some cases, code- switching is indeed necessary to be able to convey a message when the knowledge of one language does not cover these requirements and it is thus a direct consequence of insufficient linguistic repertoire in that situation. However, the predominant part of observed switches, have other purposes. The receptionists rely on their linguistic competences to accommodate to the guest’s language as much as possible. The inclusion of code-switching in greetings and goodbyes, is an excellent example of this. Switches due to changes in frame and footing are invoked to keep the dominant frame intact while handling side conversations. The number of languages in the linguistic repertoire seems to have less influence than the command of these languages.
53
8.2 Comparison Ghent and Brussels
Before making the comparison between the two cities, it is necessary to briefly discuss the earlier mentioned general language profiles. The detailed accounts can be found at the beginning of chapters six and seven. The questionnaires of the receptionists in Ghent showed that all of them, apart from one, are native Dutch speakers. English is the most important second language with a good to very good command by all receptionists. The knowledge of French ranges from zero to very good. English and Dutch are the most used languages during conversations with guests. Dutch is the main language of colloquial speech between co- workers. The questionnaires in Brussels show a more diverse picture. Native Dutch speakers usually have a very good command of French and English, with often basic knowledge of a fourth or fifth language. French, Dutch and English are almost equally present during their conversations with guests. The receptionists with a native tongue other than Dutch, mostly master five to six languages, including French, Dutch and English at different levels, their native tongue and often an extra language. They claim to mostly use English and French at the front office desk. Some of them also make mention of Dutch.
As emerged in the discussed data, code-switching is far less common at Ghent hotel receptions than at Brussels receptions. Both cities share the occurrences of code-switching when they are labelled as normal dysfluency or due to changes in frame and footing. Even then, these categories prove to be more present and more variated in Brussels than in Ghent. As discussed in the previous section, Brussels also proved to have a higher amount of code-switches due to a lack of competence, mostly Dutch. Nevertheless, this is not the most common use of code- switching in Brussels. As mentioned in the previous section, receptionists in Brussels, whether they are native Dutch speakers or not, rather employ code-switching as a way to accommodate to their interlocutor’s language, both in conversations with guests and with co-workers. This utilisation is not one that could be observed in Ghent.
The reason for these rather deviant results can be found in different explanations. First of all, even though Ghent has many touristic and business opportunities, it was observed that the clientele often did not have foreign origins. Even though there certainly were tourists and business people, a larger part of the guests was either Flemish or Dutch. Given the mutual mother language, no code-switching on behalf of the receptionists is necessary. Even though the command of French was not always very profound and could possibly incite code- switching, this did not pose a problem since there were no observations of French speaking
54
guests. The mix of nationalities and languages was far greater in Brussels, which is not surprising considering Brussels’s international importance. It is only natural that the exploration of common language agreement between receptionists and guests demands more effort and thus more code-switching in Brussels. Second, the linguistic repertoire of receptionists in Ghent is much more uniform than that of Brussels receptionists. This creates less opportunity for code- switching with colleagues in the first place, but also with guests. As will be discussed in the next section, receptionists in Brussels – especially the non-native Dutch speakers – switch more between languages when communicating with guests. As for communication with colleagues, the different linguistic backgrounds of the employees in Brussels allowed for code-switching to be the negotiation tool to demarcate different linguistic habits with different co-workers. The third reason can be found in the different sociolinguistic background of the cities and was briefly touched upon in the previous section and explained in detail in chapter four. Due to the complicated history of languages in Belgium, Mettewie & Janssens (2007) argue that languages have a highly symbolic value, to the extent that even economic and social problems are often interpreted in a linguistic frame. The matter is especially sensitive in Brussels, since the capital is officially bilingual but only 33% claims to have a good command of Dutch, compared to 95% when it comes to French (Janssens, 2001, p. 33). This could be the explanation of why non- native Dutch speakers show extensive code-switching behaviour when in the presence of native Dutch speakers, whether they are colleagues or guests. They understand the sensitive connotation of the use or non-use of Dutch and try to include their Dutch knowledge as much as possible to accommodate to Dutch speakers. During conversations with guests, this results in attempts to hold a full conversation in Dutch, which often succeeds due to the fixed pattern of check-in conversations, however sometimes the help of other languages is required. During conversations with co-workers, this sometimes results in the emergence of an almost mixed code containing Dutch, French and English utterances, as was discussed in the last part of chapter seven.
8.3 Comparison conversations with guests and with colleagues
Since the conversations with guests and with colleagues were observed to have a very different linguistic character, it was decided to discuss them separately in this paper. It has been mentioned frequently that receptionists use various tools to let conversations with guests evolve as monolingually as possible. This was almost always the case, whatever the linguistic
55
background of the receptionists. Their ways to do this and the occasions in which this behaviour failed, have been discussed according to their linguistic repertoire. However, this kind of behaviour was dropped completely during conversations with co-workers. There, crossing between languages seemed to be a very normal phenomenon that proved to occur very naturally. Even in Ghent, where most co-workers have Dutch as the same mother tongue in which they communicate, there was one occasion of natural switching with the one observed co-worker with a different native language. The diversity of the staff in Brussels ensured more of these occasions. It was most prominent in situations where native Dutch speakers and receptionists with a native tongue other than Dutch entered into communication with each other. The reasons behind this phenomenon will be discussed in this section.
First, this behaviour can be related to attitudes towards code-switching. According to Auer, (1998) code-switching has not been a popular object of study until the 1960’s. Before that, it was studied by few linguists and more treated as a marginal phenomenon. The rising interest in the matter since the 1960’s and the cooperation between the study of code-switching and other fields of research, changed its status. Code-switching is no longer viewed as a marginal phenomenon in scientific studies. However, this conception still lives on among speakers. Gardner-Chloros (2009) discussed general tendencies in the attitudes of speakers towards code- switching. She claims that the attitude towards code-switching is threefold; it is “(1) thought to be an easy or lazy option; (2) generally disapproved of, even by those who practise it; (3) below the full consciousness of those who use it” (p. 15). These findings are confirmed by the scarce research concerning linguistic attitudes that have been conducted, such as the work of Chana and Romaine (1984) and Gardner-Chloros, McEntee-Atalianis & Finnis (2005). My findings seem to agree with these studies. Great efforts are done to maintain conversations with guests monolingually, while conversations with colleagues are very multilingual. These efforts and failures depend on the linguistic repertoire of the receptionist, as was discussed in chapters six and seven. This shows how much the receptionists are aware of the negative connotation of code-switching. Moreover, out of all questioned receptionists, only one person (Annex 3.7), a native speaker of Dutch with a very good command of English and French and basic skills in Spanish, admitted using multiple languages in case of communicative problems. Considering that at least five receptionists used code-switching during conversations with guests, but did not mention it, proves Gardner-Chloros’s (2009) third point, namely that its use is “below the consciousness of those who use it” (p. 15).
56
Second, it has already been established in studies from Dewaele (2001) and Gardner-Chloros (1991) that there are more attestations of code-switching in informal than in formal situations, with native speakers as well with second language learners. In my opinion, this is also relatable to the fact that the practice might be frowned upon in formal situations. This declares the sharp opposition in linguistic behaviour that was observed in my data. Even though conversations with co-workers are still situated in a professional environment, the contact between them is more amicable than in conversations with guests, where they have to embody the professional first point of contact for costumers.
Third, Gumperz’s we-code versus they-code distinction (1982) might declare the opposition. He explains this distinction as follows:
The tendency is for the ethnically specific, minority language to be regarded as the ‘we code’ and become associated with in-group and informal activities, and for the majority language to serve as the ‘they code’ associated with the more formal, stiffer and less personal out-group relations. (Gumperz, 1982, p. 66)
First of all, it must be noted that in the case of this data, there is no actual use of minority and majority languages for different situations, so Gumperz’s description is not entirely applicable. However, the distinction he makes does distinguish between different codes for different situations. In that regard, informal conversations between co-workers can be seen as in-group activities that are associated with a specific code, characterised by the use of multiple languages. Conversations with guests can be treated as out-group activities, characterised by more formal communication and a linguistic code which generally does not allow code-switching.
8.4 The role of English
The code-switches that were portrayed in this study are characteristic of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). According to Seidlhofer (2005), the term is used to refer to “communication in English between speakers with different first languages” (p. 339). She argues that English is often the foreign language of choice during communication between people with different native languages and different cultural backgrounds. This is confirmed in this study’s data. All respondents claimed to have a good, but mostly very good command of English. The English skills were considerably better than the French skills, especially in Ghent, even though Belgium’s official second language is French. In chapter seven, we discussed a case of a
57
receptionist who employed an almost mixed code between French, Dutch and English when communicating with her Flemish colleagues, even though none of them speak English as a mother tongue. Nevertheless, the language was integrated in their common speech. In case of a linguistic mismatch between colleagues, English often turned out to be the vehicular language. In cases where non-native Dutch speakers were communicating with Dutch guests, they sometimes needed to code-switch to be able to convey the correct message. The language that was switched into, was always English. These examples show how much ELF is rooted in service encounters, even in regions where English is no official language.
58
Chapter 9: Conclusion
This study tried to provide an answer to the question to what extent a receptionist’s multilingual repertoire influences the use of code-switching during hotel reception conversations. In order to answer this question, observational studies were performed in seven hotels in Ghent and Brussels. The observations were accompanied by questionnaires about language knowledge and linguistic behaviour at hotel receptions, filled in by the observed receptionists. The study proceeded according to the methodology and tradition of Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis.
First and foremost, the generally accepted vision among speakers that code-switching in multilingual situations is a manifestation of laziness and insufficient incompetence (Gardner- Chloros, 2009), proved to be false, just like the sociolinguistic sciences already established. The larger part of the switches that occurred during the observations could not be ascribed to an insufficient linguistic repertoire. On the contrary, they are often exploited as a communication tool with various functions. It is however true that the receptionists try to avoid code-switching as much as possible, probably to avoid the association with this connotation.
One of the earlier mentioned functions of code-switching is using it as an exploratory device during the greeting of the guest. In this case, the practice is used to determine the most advantageous linguistic manner in which the rest of the conversation will be continued, preferably monolingually. In Brussels, it was proven that code-switching with an exploratory function in the greeting of the guest can be the perfect reflection of one’s multilingual repertoire and preferences. The languages which belong to the receptionist’s linguistic repertoire are displayed and the guest continues the conversation in whichever language seems most agreeable to him. On the other hand, some receptionists with similar linguistic repertoires did not feel the need to establish their language knowledge during the greeting and used other accommodation strategies, such as a negotiation model. Linguistic (in)security can be suggested as a determining factor in the choice of strategy. In Ghent, receptionists prefer language-neutral greetings over multilingual ones and then accommodate to the guest’s response. The linguistic background of Ghent, the hotel audience and receptionists create an environment within which this practise is more easily admitted than in Brussels, where the linguistic repertoire plays a bigger role in exploratory code-switching, next to personal preferences and hotel policy.
The rest of the conversation, i.e. without possible exploratory greeting, shows different patterns and tendencies. In Ghent, most conversations are held in either English or Dutch. Given that
59
the linguistic repertoire of the observed receptionists was perfectly equipped for the average hotel guest, there were few attestations of code-switching. The switches that did occur, were on the one hand either a signalisation or a consequence of changes in frame and footing. On the other hand, they were manifestations of normal non-fluency, i.e. slips of languages that are normal and can be expected in multilingual conversations. Naturally, these switches are consequential to the fact that the speakers are multilingual, but they are definitely no manifestations of incompetence or insufficient language knowledge.
To analyse the influence of linguistic repertoire in Brussels, we had to make a distinction between native Dutch speakers and receptionists with a native language other than Dutch. This separation had to be made because the two groups had very different linguistic repertoires and consequently, showed a distinct linguistic behaviour. Moreover, the presence of Dutch speaking people, whether they were guests or co-workers, seemed to be an important influential factor on the use of code-switching. The linguistic repertoire of native speakers of Dutch seems fairly similar to that of Ghent receptionists, with the exception that the command of French in Brussels is considerably better. The general tendency is that conversations with guests are as monolingual as possible, which was proven by the analysed data. Nevertheless, receptionists regularly use their multilingual repertoire to their benefit in order to accommodate to the guest’s language or variant. In that way, code-switching is used to establish politeness and closeness to the guest. In no case was the help of code-switching invoked to make up for linguistic insufficiencies.
The receptionists with a native tongue other than Dutch had very diverse, but also fairly enhanced linguistic repertoires. In this group, the most attestations of code-switching were found. Similarly or even more than in Ghent, cases of code-switching as a result of normal non- fluency and changes in frame and footing were frequently attested. This could be a consequence of the more extended linguistic repertoire of the non-native Dutch speakers. Moreover, it was observed that when these receptionists left behind the fixed pattern of a check-in conversation, code-switching was more prominently present in their utterances, especially when the main language of the conversation was Dutch. These are the first and only examples of using other languages when the linguistic competences are not sufficient enough. Nevertheless, there was a strong adherence to Dutch in this kind of conversations. This is probably due to the receptionist’s awareness of the connotation of Dutch as a language in Brussels: even though it is an official language, it is scarcely mastered nor used in the area, which is a sensitive issue. In the capacity of a friendly and polite representative of a Brussels hotel, the receptionist tries
60
to accommodate as much as possible to the Dutch language of the guest, even if code-switches are needed to reach that goal.
When it comes to conversations between colleagues, the linguistic situation proved to be entirely different than during conversations with guests in all three groups. Code-switching practices are far more common and natural than during conversations with guests. In Ghent, the number was not abundant, due to a mainly Flemish staff, but the switches that were attested, felt natural, which suggests that it is commonly employed. In Brussels, native speakers of Dutch used more code-switching with colleagues than with guests. The switches either had the same nature as the ones in Ghent, and were thus natural occurrences, or they were utilised as a part of inclusion strategies to accommodate to the various range of native languages among colleagues. The non-native Dutch speakers are the absolute winners when it comes to switching languages between colleagues. Not only are there numerous attestations of addressing each colleague in a different language or in a combination of languages, but in cases where Dutch speaking co-workers are involved, an almost mixed code emerges that includes intrasentential switching between Dutch, French and English, even though English is nobody’s native language. English functions as a neutral bridging language without any political connotation. It is important to note the considerable differences between conversations with guests and with colleagues: whereas in the former, efforts are made to reduce code-switching to the minimum, in the latter attestations are numerous. The use of code-switching in more informal situations proves that this is the standard situation, but that negative attitudes towards the practice encourage them to converse as monolingually as possible with guests.
In short, multilingual repertoires influence code-switching practises in various ways. Only a small part of the switches is due to insufficient language knowledge. The others are more often than not accommodation strategies to benefit the guest’s comfort. To what extent the results of this study can contribute to the construction of general conclusions is yet to be awaited in further research. Nevertheless, it offers new insights in the way linguistic competence and code- switching are related in multilingual environments.
61
Chapter 10: References
Auer, P. (Ed.). (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge. Chana, U., & Romaine, S. (1984). Evaluative reactions to Panjabi-English code-switching. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 5(6), 447-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1984.9994174 Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of Language Contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Belgische Grondwet. Het federale België, zijn samenstelling en zijn grondgebied: art. 4. Consulted on 3 May 2018, retrieved from https://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html Dewaele, J. M. (2001). Activation or inhibition? The interaction of L1, L2 and L3 on the language mode continuum. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 69-89. Eastman, C. M. (Ed.). (1992). Codeswitching (Vol. 13). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gardner-Chloros, P. (1991). Language Selection and Switching in Strasbourg. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gardner-Chloros, P., Charles, R., & Cheshire, J. (2000). Parallel patterns? A comparison of monolingual speech and bilingual codeswitching discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(9), 1305-1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00120-4
Gardner-Chloros, P., McEntee-Atalianis, L. & Finnis, K. (2005). Language attitudes and use in a transplanted setting: Greek Cypriots in London. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2(1), 52-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220508668376
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. Academic Press. Ginsburgh, V., & Weber, S. (2006). La dynamique des langues en Belgique. Regards économiques, 42(1), 1-10. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Gumperz, J.J. (1964). Hindi-Panjabi code-switching in Delhi. In H. Lunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics, Boston, MA (pp. 1115-1124). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse strategies (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hi [Def. 1] (n.d.). In Merriam Webster Online, Retrieved 7 April 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hi Janssens, R. (2001). Taalgebruik in Brussel: Taalverhoudingen, taalverschuivingen en taalidentiteit in een meertalige stad. Brussel: VUBPress.
62
Janssens, R. (2008). Language use in Brussels and the position of Dutch. Brussels Studies, 13. https://doi.org/10.4000/brussels.520 Jus d’orange [Def. 1] (n.d.). In Taalunie: Taaladvies. Retrieved 10 April 2018, from http://taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/1520/sjuutje_justje/ Lawson, S., & Sachdev, I. (2000). Codeswitching in Tunisia: Attitudinal and behavioural dimensions. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(9), 1343-1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378- 2166(99)00103-4 Meet- en Weetcel VGC (2015). Brussel in cijfers: Situatieschets van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest en zijn inwoners. Consulted on 3 May 2018, retrieved from http://www.vgc.be/sites/www.vgc.be/files/download/oa_cjs_brussel_in_cijfers_werkv eldanalyses_2015_webversie.pdf Meeuwis, M. & Blommaert, J. (1998). A monolectal view of code-switching: Layered code- switching among Zairians in Belgium. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in Conversation: Language, interaction and identity (pp. 290-317). London: Routledge. Mettewie, L., & Janssens, R. (2007). Language use and language attitudes in Brussels. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Huguet (Eds.). Multilingualism in European bilingual contexts: Language use and attitudes (pp. 117-143). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (Eds.). (1995). One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1983). The negotiation of identities in conversation: A theory of markedness and code choice. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 44, 115-136. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1983.44.115 Pfaff, C. W. (1979). Constraints on Language Mixing: Intrasentential Code-Switching and Borrowing in Spanish/English. Language, 55(2), 291-318. http://doi.org/10.2307/412586 Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction (Vol. 35). California, CA: Sage. Rampton, B. (1995). Language crossing and the problematisation of ethnicity and socialisation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 5(4), 485-513. http://doi.org/10.1075/prag.5.4.04ram Rampton, B. (1998). Language crossing and the redefinition of reality. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in Conversation: Language, interaction and identity (pp. 290-317). London: Routledge. Rijksoverheid Nederland (2018). Toekomstgericht curriculum. Consulted on 20 April 2018, retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/toekomst- onderwijs/toekomstgericht-curriculum Romaine, S. (1986). The syntax and semantics of the code-mixed compound verb in Panjabi- English bilingual discourse. In D. Tannen & J. Alatis (Eds.), Language and Linguistics. The Interdependance of Theory, Data and Application (pp. 35-49). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
63
Romaine, S. (1992). Language, Education and Development: Urban and rural Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romaine, S. (2017). Pidgin and creole languages. London: Routledge. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25(1), 201-218. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201 Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT journal, 59(4), 339-341. Slembrouck, S. (2009). Goffman’s frame analysis: a recent rejoinder. In S. Slembrouck, M. Taverniers & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), From Will to Well: Studies in Linguistics, Offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (pp. 381-392). Ghent: Academia