1 Introduction

Code, as a socialinguistic term, refers to any symbolic system that people use for communication. It can be a language, a dialect or a variety（Zhao,2007, p.49）. The practice of shifting from one language to another is considered to be code switching, which is getting more and more common in many multilinguigual or bilingual societies nowadays. This common phemomena have aroused great interests from academic research, but most of their studies are focalized around its linguistic feature and social function, the issue of listeners’ attitude toward code-switching is limitedly discussed. To further this question, we conduct an empirical study to investigate college students’ attitude toward code-mixing.

2 Code Mixing

2.1 Definition

Code is “a term which is used instead of language, speech variety or dialect (Richard et al,2000:70). Anyone who speaks more than one language chooses between them according to circumstances (Hudson,2000:25). The alternative use by bilinguals between one or more languages or dialects concurrently is called code switching. In code-switching, language change usually corresponds to situation change; however, when the speakers communicating with each other are fluent bilinguals, they might shift to another language without any other changes in the situation (Hudson,2000:25). This kind of concurrent switching within the same sentence is called code-mixing, which is viewed by some researchers as intra-sentential code-switching.

Many scholars hold different views about code-switching and code-mixing. Some argue that code-switching is not significantly different from code-mixing, while others hold the opposite view. Pfaff (1979) uses the term mixing to cover both code-switching and borrowing, while Verschauer (1999:119) uses “code-switching” to include both “inter-sentential code-switching” and “intra-sentential code-switching”. Singh (1985) uses the term code-mixing for intra-sentential switching and code-switching for diglossic situations. Muysken (2000) uses the term code-mixing for the combination of lexical items and grammatical features of two distinct languages in one sentence, while the term code-switching for the occurrence of two languages in a single interaction. We agree with Muysken in that L1-L2/L2-L1 switching differs a lot from L2+L1 switching, namely, code-mixing.

In China, with the promotion of English education, language contact is inevitable; the mixed use of two languages in the same sentence is a common practice between English and Chinese for many bilinguals.

2.2 Status Quo

The term switching was first proposed by Hockett in1953, which aroused great concern from many researchers, who employed different approaches to deal with code-switching. Among them, the most prevailing are linguistic and sociolinguistic approaches.

The sociolinguistic approach focuses on social functions, effects and motivation for code-switching. Gumperz is one of the representative scholars who divides the code combination into two categories according to different functions: situational code-mixing and metaphorical code-mixing. Situational code-mixing means that the communicator adapts to the change of the situation by changing the code. Metaphorical code-mixing means that the communicator expresses a certain communicative intention (Gumperz,1982, pp.63-66). The linguistic approach mainly focuses on the internal constraints and structural characteristics of language in the1970s and shifted to characterizing the morphosyntactic constraints on intra-sentential switching in the1980s (Coulmas,2001:219). Other approaches from pragmatics, psycholinguistics and functional linguistics are also applied in this field (Yu,2006; Chan2000; Liu,2000).

Switching is natural and inevitable in multilingual and bilingual communities. It occurs either deliberately or randomly and the choice of code by the speakers can be conscious or unconscious as long as language contact exists. Crystal (2002) noticed that when speakers have trouble in expressing themselves adequately in one language, they will switch to the other to make good the deficiency. The switch between languages can signal the speaker’s attitude towards the listener; if two bilinguals normally talk to each other in one language, the choice of another language is bound to create a special effect.

In the past, the public have given code switching mixed reviews. Some codes are reviewed as high-context, while some are reviewed as low; some are labeled noble, and some rustic. One prevailing view in the past holds that the speakers who switch code in communication are often “deficient, and bastardization blend”; they are forced to switch code due to the limited ability of the languages in command. Code switching and code mixing were played down as illegal communicative patterns. Gumperz (1982:65) challenged that view by pointing out that only a few speakers in code-switching have language problems in expressing themselves. In most cases, the words with two codes can be perfectly expressed in one single language. Some speakers engaged in code-switching are well educated; labels like low IQ, illogical and poor wording are unfounded. Some people worry about language purity and cultural collapse, and some view various bilingual practices as overt features representing their community identity.

The history shows that language develops and changes with the development of society. In China, with the advancement of society and English education, the number of bilinguals of L1 Chinese and L2 English is on the rise. College students, as a representative group with a command of two languages, are not only speakers but also listeners in code-switching. Do listeners share the same feelings as speakers? Does L2 level determine the choice of code? These questions remain unanswered. To bridge this research gap, we conduct an online survey to find out the answers.

Methodology

Research Questions

To find out whether there is any difference between listeners and speakers on the issue of attitude toward code switching, three specific questions are listed below.

1. What makes college students switch code in communication?
2. What are college students’ attitudes toward code-mixing as speakers?
3. What are college students’ attitudes toward code-mixing as listeners?

Subjects

The subjects of the research were all college students. They were asked to finish the questionnaire online. The reason for choosing college students as the subjects is because they are generally well educated and have more or less mastery of English as a foreign language. Their ability to accept new things and creativity make them open and more tolerant to code-mixing.

Instrument

The questionnaire consists of three types of questions: multiple choice, matrix scale and general scale. The whole survey was conducted online via the software Questionnaire Star. The collected data were analyzed with the help of SPSS19.0.

4 Data Analysis

The survey was conducted in May,2019. Two hundred and thirty college students from various colleges participated in the online survey. Among them,227 questionnaires were valid. All the data were analyzed by SPSS19.0.

4.1 Factors triggering code-mixing

In the questionnaire survey, to speak expressively, bring forth humorous effect and use euphemism to avoid awkward situations are the first three factors accounting for code-mixing.66.81% prefer to switch code when they are unable to find the right word to express themselves clearly;66.5% mix Chinese and English to bring forth humorous effect; and66.37% of college students use euphemism in another language to avoid awkward situations, such as taboo or swear words, as perfect semantic mapping between different languages is impossible (Zhao,2011). Another factor is the mentality to keep in fashion, and50.66% of answers fall into this category. Other factors include keeping collective identity (46.28%) and showing off cultural ability (43.22%).

These findings clearly indicate that college students consider more the language's functionality and use in communication. The survey found that only20% of students use English because of fashion. Researchers generally agree that post-90s college students have more rational emotional characteristics; this characteristic is also reflected in their attitude towards language. Some researchers' findings on the psychology of post-90s college students said: compared with the post-80s, the post-90s are more rational, their expression is more direct, and they value innovation. According to the characteristics and utility of language, students choose different languages in different contexts to achieve satisfactory communication results. It is undeniable that under certain circumstances, code mixing of Chinese and English does have irreplaceable functions, such as euphemism and exact meaning, like sexy and some humorous expressions, like hold zhu(住).

4.2 Language attitudes towards code mixing

First, more than32% of college students believe that the current mixed use of Chinese and English has become a common phenomenon in college life, with nearly27% of students opposing it, and38% remaining neutral.

When asked how to look at the mixing of English and Chinese, most students expressed neutrality. Some of them admit that English has a certain role in promoting Chinese, but they do not want excessive mixed use of Chinese-English, worrying about Chinese purity. Some people also think that language life has nothing to do with mindset. They think that language is a communicative tool and a product of social conventions. It does not require people to intervene. There are still some people who are unaware of this change but are passively influenced; they have no clear point of view.

On the other hand, the results show that some students think that the non-standard language mixed with Chinese and English is not a problem worthy of discussion. Nearly34% of students believe that they have certain obligations and responsibilities in Chinese heritage, and27% of students believe that English is not conducive to the purity of Chinese. Most students believe that the language they use everyday is not related to Chinese language norms. A considerable number of students do not have a serious rational understanding of the use of language, and they lack a sense of sociality, responsibility and mission in their heritage of language and culture. One implication of this survey for language research is that modern college students' evaluation of their mother tongue needs to be improved; that is, the language use attitude. The survey shows that the reason why students choose to mix Chinese and English is partly because the recognition of English sometimes surpasses that of Chinese, which is a point that higher education must pay attention to. In contemporary higher education, college students have more input into foreign culture than local culture.

5 Reflections and Conclusions

Theoretically speaking, code-mixing is a natural phenomenon derived from language contact (Winford2003; Clyne2002). Language contact is inevitable between nations with different languages as a result of trading, cultural communication, migration and colonialization. There is no language or dialect without any experience of mixing and integrating in the world. But it doesn’t mean we have to accept and implant other languages and cultures uncritically. What college students should do is to keep their national culture attractive by learning from the essence of other cultures.

参考文献：

1. [1] Chen Jianwei.（2007）. A Survey on Language Attitude of the College Students of the Present Age—A Case on Suzhou College Students. Journal of Hengshui University, (9),55–61.
2. [2] Clyne, M. (1972). Perspectives on Language Contact: Based on a Study of German in Australia. Melbourne.
3. [3] Coulmas, F. (2001). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
4. [4] Coulmas, Florian.（2001）. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language.
5. [5] Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language.2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press.
6. [6] Fasold, Ralph.（2000）. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language.
7. [7] Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. London: Cambridge University Press.
8. [8] He Qun.（2012）. Essentials of Sociolinguistics. Beijing: The Ethnic Publishing House.
9. [9] He Ziran, Yu Guodong.（2001）. Researches on Code-switching. Modern Foreign Languages, (24),85–95.
10. [10] Hudson, R. H.（2000）. Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
11. [11] John J. Gumperz.（1982）. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.
12. [12] Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech: Typology of Code-mixing. London: Cambridge University Press.
13. [13] Pfaff, C. W. (1979). Constraints on language mixing. Language,55,291–318.
14. [14] Richard, Jack C. et al. (2000). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
15. [15] Singh, R. (1985). Grammatical Constraints on Code-Mixing: Evidence from Hindi-English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics,30,33–45.
16. [16] Verschauer, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
17. [17] Wardhaugh, Ronald.（2000）. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
18. [18] Winford, D. (2003). An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
19. [19] Yu Guodong.（2000）. A Pragmatic Analysis of Code-switching. Journal of Foreign Languages, (6),22–27.
20. [20] Zhao Xiang.（2007）. On Chinese-English Code Mixing. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (6),10–12.