Chapter 11

Switching in International English

Roland Sussex

11.1 Introduction

Inter-language switching, onee the pariah of language learners, is now an eminently

respectable pan of both bil ingual language performance and linguistic analysis.
Switching involves the use of more than one language code or system in an utler-
ance. Scholars like Myers-Scotlon (2002) have created a theoretical and analytical
framework where language material is transferred from one language to another:
And mon Di•u, it wos WI absolut• disasi.r.

Such inter-language switching is endemic, creative and popular in many of the

Outer Circle (Kachru 1985) communities like Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia.
In places like Singapore ii may routinely involve three languages, or even more - in
Singapore that means especially English, Chinese and Malay. In this chapter we will
use "code-switching" 10 cover all inter-language transfers.
Unlike Chap. 9 by Pcnnycook (this volume), the present chapter sees a language
as a system and entity (see the Introduction, and the Postscript and Prolegomenon).
This position is not so much a theoretical claim as a working hypothesis, even a
heuristic. People who practise switching arc sometimes so competent in the languages
involved, or so competent at cross-language mixi ng, that they can appear to be
working creatively without a need for a language boundary 10 cross. But as we shall
see, there are good (though not exclusively persuasive) reasons to hold to the system
view, a l least for the purposes of this investigation.

R. Sussex (81)
School of Languages and Compara1ive Cuhural S1ud1es,
and Cenlrc for Educa1ionnl Innovation and Technology.
The Univcrsi1y of Queensland. Queensland, Austr11lia
e-mail: r.susscx@uq.cdu.au

A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex (eds.), English as an lntunational Language in Asta: 175

Implications/or Language Education. Muhilingunl Educalion I.
001 10.10071')78-94-007-4578..()_ l I. C Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrech12012

176 R. Sussex
11.2 Language Switching, Pragmatic Switching and Culture
Switching
Most studies of switching arc concerned with the forms of languages. This can be
phonological, as happens when we swap from authentic LO "foreign" pronunciation.
It can be morphological, for instance in the unstable realization of the plural in
Asian Eng lishes (see also Kirkpatrick 2007) in public signs:
Luggagrs (Macao Ferry Tcnninal)
Thuma/ imaging in progrtss. 20 me1er (KL International Airport)
Pleau mind your sltps (KL lntcma1ional Airport)
No 1rolley on 1he aero/rain (KL ln1cmational Airport)
Such fonns may well become e ithe r standard, or full y accepted variants respec-
tively in Macao and Malaysia. As things stand a1 present, however, this use (or not)
of the plural is not standard, and cons1i1utcs switching or cross-code interference.
Switching requires that both speakers share sufficient knowledge of two or more
shared languages. It is also typically asymmetrical, in that one speaker will be more
competent than the other, or that one speaker will make more accommodation than
the other: the two often go together, since the more competent speaker has a larger
repertoire of choices to find messages appropriate for a particular interlocutor and
contexL This may involve the negotiation and choice of the language which the two
speakers best share for communication (Ting and Sussex 2002), or it may involve
the selection of language fo rms appropriate 10 the language level of both, and espe-
cially the weaker speaker. Switching is therefore a communicative strategy. It is often
del iberate and strategic, as when a str0nger speaker accommodates to a less competent
interlocutor. But ii can also be motivated by language gaps, when a speaker lacks
command of language fonns for a particular task of communication. And with really
competent bilinguals switches can be pan of competent, wiuy, expressive interpersonal
communication, where the enjoyment and exploitation of language resources seem
lo emerge naturally, rapidly and seamlessly in the now of communication. Bilingual
children do this with particular ease and unconscious grace. Switching is a natural pan
of finding appropriate expression for a message.
But switching need not be only motivated by language fonns. Pragmatic switching is
also found, though its presence is often more subtly expressed, and is often more difficult
10 identify, because it can involve either a change in language code, or the expression of
pragmatic functions from one language in the forms of the other language. Bilingual
politeness can give rise to issues of switching, often occasioned by pragmatic differ-
ences between the languages in involved. So too can the modest dcnecting of compli-
ments as a cultural practice under the innuence of Confucian values (Pham 2011).
11.3 Language vs Pragmatic vs Cultural Switching
There arc speake rs with superior command of L(anguage) who have incompetent
P(ragmalics) and C(ul1ure), for instance people who have studied language mainly
from books with no interpersonal or in-country experience. Alternatively, some
177
11 Switching in International English
expatriates, on returning home after years living in another country, still have v~ry
compe1en1 L but their P aad C have become affected by the values of th~ countries
where they have lived. Or there are people with competent perfonnance m ~ a~d C
but incompetent L - culturally sensitive tourists who have managed LO ass1m1late
key values and practices by interpersonal contact, but whose c~mmand of L. remams
uneven and unreliable. Many combinations of L, P and C will be fou nd m cross-
language encounters in Asia, and speakers need to be able to work out the fit between
their own L I P IC and that of their interlocuLor.
Cultural shifls in particular can appear inscrutable. Engl ish translations of
Chekhov's play The cherry orchard struggle with one parLicular cross-cultural
switch. The family is late for a train; the train's whistle is heard; and ~ey agree th~t
they must all sit down Logether; and do, in spite of the fact thal this. makes .1~e1r
catching the train even more problematic. The answer lies in a Russian tr.ad1uon:
before a journey one sits down with the company for a mo~cnt of shared u~c and
feelings. In Russia it would be unthinkable LO forego this. cu~L~m even ':"1th an
approaching train that one is possibly about to miss. In Enghsh.1LJUSt d.oesn l make
much sense. The hapless Lranslator has either to add an explanauon (As 1s cusromary
in Russia), or has to hope that the audience will suspend disbelief long enough for
them 10 make the train.
In order to explore these issues of UPIC switching, we will. cxamin~ in .det~il
three phenomena which reveal both the nature and the complexity of sw1tchmg m
bilingual contexts. The three phenomena arc the Arabic inshallah "if ~od wills";
contrastive data on cvidentials, the English verb think and the expression of cer-
tainty; and the use of diminutives in English, specifically AusLralian English..These
three case studies allow us to probe the interactions of language, pragmatic and
cultural switching, and to move towards a statement of the kinds of cxpe~se w~i.ch
will be necessary in bilinguals, specifically but not only English-speaking b1hn-
guals, in an Asian context. All these phenomena arc triggered by, and rely on, l~­
guage cues. It is common to fin d non-language shift (e.g. in ritual and cercmomes
in intercultural contexts), but these arc outside the scope of the present chapter.
11.4 lnshallah
Arabic inshallah literally means "if God wills", corresponding to English God willing
(Farghal 1995; Masilyah 1999; Nazi.al 2001). The English God willing, which used
to be moderately common in the nineteenth century, is now rather seldom heard. In
Arabic, on the other hand, inshallah is extremely common. ii is required i n sent~nces
conLaining a future or hypothetical predicate. In English one routine ly commits t.o
future events and intentions of one's own volition: /'II see you tomorrow at 5. This
covers intentions, promises and expectations, as well as straight statements of
expected events. Jn Arabic, on the other hand, such confidence about future events
is presumptuous. The realization of statements about fu ture action depends on God:s
will, and inshallah is required. The standard Anglo interpretation of the futur~ is
therefore radically different from the Islamic-Arabic one in tenns of how we view
God's will in relation to human intentions, the notion of free will, and the role of
God in everyday human affairs.

178
The role of inshallah in switching is immediately obviously in the speech of
Muslims operati ng in another language, as is seen in this English example from the
website " lslamonline". A female correspondent is contemplating her future:
I am rurrt!ntly 20 ftars old. INSHALJ.A H I will Ma doctor in a few year•. ( ... / If I am lucky
tna11gh to marry ( ... }, I would lrkt to work for a ftw ytars. My qutstion is, would 11 M
wrong to expel'/ (my hu.<band/ to watch tht kids Ii/wt havt lmy INSHALJ.AH), whilt I 'm
away lit work.
Here bolh a regulation future (INSHAUJ\H I will be a doctor) and a conditional
IF-clause (if we have any INSHAUJ\H) are accompanied by inshallah. In one sense
inshallah approximates to the sentence-adverbial hopefully, though hopefi1/ly is far
less frequent and not motivated by religious belief. The prominence of i11shallah in
English can be approximately demonstrated by Google searches:
Phrase Google frequency ( 13 December 2011)
If God wills 3.2 m (especially in the Bible. Acts 18:2 1)
If God wishts 671 k
God willing 6.2 m
With God's htlp 3.7 m
God prottct 1.7 k
God bltss Amtrica I0.6m
lnshallah 6.8m
(lnshallah is also, in Australia, the name of a surfboard.) /nshallah is common not
only in English, but also in other "Western" languages with strong contact with
Arabic, like French, especially but not only through contact with Arabic in the
French-speaking parts of North Africa and the Maghreb:
jt tt 1•trrai dtmain, inchallah ("I' II sec you tomorrow. inshallah")
And it is widespread in "Musli m" languages like Bangla, Bahasa Indonesia and
Malay, Farsi I Persian, Urdu and Turkish.
For Mus lim LI speakers of English it is arguable Lhat inshallah is, from the point
of view of language forms, not a switch but a borrowing, in spite of its clear cultural
significance. Between Muslims speaking English it is the default, as it is for Muslims
speaking English for a more general audience: this can be heard on Lhc television
channel "Al Jazeera", and read in numerous biogs, websites and social media. Some
Muslims, especially from less conservative Muslim societies like Indonesia, will
use inshallah less when speaking English to non-Muslims, as I have observed from
my research students, and especially in a Western country like Australia.
But an intriguing and difficult question arises when we ask whether non-Muslims
can or should use inshallah when speaking to Muslims, especially in Muslim coun-
tries. Westerners in countries like Saudi Arabia are required - and expected - to
respect local norms of behaviour and dress, so that women wear at least a head scarf,
and everyone observes the cultural prohibitions about flesh-contact, and therefore
shaking hands, between people of opposite sexes who are not related or married.
Whether Westerners should use inshallah when speaking Arabic is a question for a
11 Switching in International English 179
R. Sussex
later paper. The issue here is whether Westerners should use inshallah in English
when speaking to Muslims, and specifically in Islamic countries.
There is one recent factual barrier to the use of Allah in relation to the non-
Islamic God. A decision in Malaysia - though one still under adjudication by the
religious couns - is that Allah is only for the Muslim God, and the Malay term
111ha11 "Lord" should be used for non-Muslim concepts of God. This would make
inshallah potentially problematic for non-Muslims: may they, with cultural sensi-
tivity, refer in this way to a God from another religion and cultural context? On the
other hand, if I don't use i11shallah when I am otherwise obeyi ng - say - Malay
cultural conventions of social behaviour. will I appear as an ordinary WesLern-
culture-bound Australian? When I put this question Lo one Indo nesian informant the
answer was "Why not? It's the same God, after all". A Saudi colleague, in conLrasL,
was uncomfortable with this suggestion. Another agreed wiLh the Indonesian.
The issue of inshallah is of central concern in Lhe Muslim countries of Asia, Asia
Minor and the Mediterranean, as well as to Muslim communities in the many
Muslim diasporas, and the people who interact with them. It is so common in the
English of Muslims in Lhesc countries that visitors need Lo understand the pragmat-
ics and cultural significance of insha//ah, and Lhe constraints - still very much to be
established, and probably in need of person to person negotiation - on iLS switching
use by non-Muslims. lnshalloh is unlikely to be an issue of usage by non-Muslims
with non-Muslims (though i11clialla/1 is now a common borrowing in French). Bul
it is clearly a substantial issue for English as an i nternational Language in Asia. It is
a question of language forms (use with the future and hypothetical statements), of
pragmatics, and of cultural values.
11.S Facts, Assertions, Evidentials, Understatements
and Stereotypes
A rather different kind of interaction between language, pragmatics and culture in
intercultural communication concerns Lhe expression of facts, certainty and uncer-
tainty and the speech act of assertion. Stereotypes are well represented in the literature
in relation to the direct expression of views: a typical example is the well-known
Japanese/Korean avoidance of " no" in face to face situations, and their use of para-
phrases, euphemisms and circumlocutions to capture an implied negative
(Wierz.bicka 1996). More subtle, however, is the question of the expression of an
event as fact or hearsay. Balkan languages like Turkish, and two Slavic languages
(Bulgarian and Macedonian), have inflexional verb systems, which originated with
Turkish, to differentiate between aueslcd facL and an event which can be anything
from hearsay lo simply unwitnessed events which Lhe speaker is not in a position
Lo vouch for (Sussex and Cubberley 2006, pp. 247- 248). These are Lhc rcnarraLive
moods, and are typically used in fairy stories, where the content is manifestly
imaginary, as well as in everyday reports 10 mark thaL the events described arc not
vouched for by the speaker. Even more radical is the four-way division of Eastern
 180 R. Susscx
Pomo, a nearly extinct language of California, where the verb system requires that
the speaker specify whether the event was experienced by the speaker, witnessed
by the speaker, known 10 the speaker by indirect evidence, or known only by hearsay
(Evans 2009). Other languages can capture these nuances by paraphrase, as we
have just done. But it is unusual lo find it morphologically encoded in this way and
10 this level of delicacy.
English has a not dissimilar concern for asserting events as facts or less than facts.
The mechanism in English is not morphological but lexical (unlike Turkish, Bulgarian
and Macedonian, or in Eastern Pomo). These issues are captured by Wierzbicka in
English. Meaning and culture (2006). The issue has to do with the confidence with
which one offers a statement, where Xis Y is the slrOllgest factual assertion; and with the
ways in which the assertiveness can be auenuated. Wierzbicka's list (p. 29) includes:
COMPROMISERS: comparaJiVt!IY, enough. kind of. morP or /us. quirt, rather. rPlallVt!/y.
sort of
DIM INISHERS: a lirrle, in many/some rPspects, in part, mildly, moderately partial/)\
partly, prPtty, slightly, somewhat
MINIMIZERS: a bit, barPly, hardly. scarcely
APPROXIMATORS: almost, basically, nearly, practiclllly, technically. virtually
English also has verbal expressions which deal with different levels of assertion of
facts: think, guess, suppose, suspect, estimate, feel:
fact: I vouch for that, know it to be true
less than fact: I say this but won't necessarily l'Ouchfor it
English speakers, then, are punctilious about what is offered as fact (see Locke's
An essay concerning human understanding, 1690). The key phrase is I think,
especially followed by that or an embedded sentence:
I think that ht 's going to be tltcltd
I think he 's going to be tlected
Wier.Wicka compared the frequency of "I think" in English with its frequency in
Swedish, Dutch and Gennan, all Gennanic language.~ with a long history of cultural and
linguistic interaction with English. The results were, per I0,000 words (2006, p. 37):
Wrincn English I think 35
Conversational English I think 51
Spoken Swedish jag ll'Or 2.6
Spoken Dutch
ik denk 9
Spoken German ich glaube ("I believe") 5 Latin m11.s "mouse", musculllS "linle mouse"
ich mcinc r'I believe") 3 This explains their widespread use in naming and addressing. Some la~guages
ich denke ("I lhink") 0.6
There are, therefore, important differences between inslzallah and the English use of
epistemic think in tennsof theircommunicativeand intercultural implications. Inslzallah
is motivnted by questions of theology and belief. Its use is a matter of cultural habit, one
which is so customary for Muslims that it is not immediately perceived, except by its
absence. In contrast, for non-Muslims, especially in their LI, the presence of inslzallah
11 Switching in ln1erna1ion1I English 181
is striking and noteworthy: it is lexically and stylis~cally promine_nL E~identials and
think. however, are more subtle. Technically they involve the ep1stem1~ weakening
of assenions. Bui Wierzbicka's data suggest that the use of think in English is more a
matter of cultural habit, a discourse feature which may have an epistemic effect on the
hearer, but which for the speaker, especially the LI speaker, may~ more a ~atler of
convention. LI speakers of English are usually unaware of a difference 1~ usa~e
between their frequency and usage of think and that of L2 speakers, except in their
reactions 10 its absence: they are aware of an impression of varyi_ng level~ of out-0~-~e­
nonnal assertiveness on the part of their interlocutor, but have difficulty in deterrrumng
the cause. Funhennore, once the cause is known, to either LI or L2 speakers of En~hsh,
negotiation of a shared mode of epistemic usage is not a simple matter. One can enher
acknowledge that the speaker, say an L2 English user, may have different patterns. of
epistemic think which iransfer from their LI . Or one can attempt to use Engl~s~
epistemic think rather less, as an accommodation strategy, in order to smooth and fac1h-
tale communication.
Controlling the use of think al a conscious level is a mauer for the adv~nced L2
speaker. fl is nol as easy as deciding whether and when to express thanks, ~or instance,
where the speech act of thanking is more prominent and more accessible to con
scious control (Ohashi 2008) (though Asian students in Australia frequently _com-
ment on the Australians' habit of thanking bus drivers; in their view, no paruc~lar
service has been rendered, and so no expression of thanks is required, since the dnver
has just been doing a paid job). Advanced bilingual-biculturals do hand!~ the cross-
language differences of think, but may be unaware of what they are doing or why.
Speakers who under-use think, using LI English as a base-~ine, can appca~ unduly
assertive 10 speakers who are tuned in 10 LI English nonns in the use of tlunk. But,
as Wieri.bicka has shown, reduced levels of think will be the nonn for Ge~an, Du~ch
and Swedish speakers, and the LI English frequency of think can give an 1mpress1on
of indecision or undue fussiness about expressing a conventional message.
11.6 Diminutives and Australian English
Diminutives (or hypocoristics) are a common feature especially of nouns in lndo-
European languages:
may have as many as ten or so different forms of personal names, often with mul-
tiple levels and layers of affection (or not):
Russian Aleksandr, diminutives Sasha. Sonya, Shurik, Shuro, Alek.stmdrushJw
Diminutives have many cultural values in talk in interaction. One of ~h~ir b?sic
meanings is smaller physical size (hence the name "diminutive"). But diminuuves
are very common in expressing pet names, especially with forenames, as suggested
 182
R. S ussex
by the Greek term "hypocorislic" from under+child; here the core meaning is
alTecLion :
Ma'8nrt!t > Meg> Peggy
Diminutives can express familiarity, eiLher of speaker and hearer, or of the inLerlocu-
tors' joint understanding of the topic of conversation:
Bring mummy the little doggie
Do you Jiu 1·eggies with your burger?
Diminutives can even fulfil the function of hedging:
wail a miMi~ =wait 1 minute
Diminutives are also common when used of names, including proper names, in in
everyday life or in professional practice:
Chinese: Beijing D(JJ(11e " Beijing Universi1y"> Bti Do
Frcnch:facu/tl "facully" >fac, sciences politiques "poliucal scienccs'">sc1enus po
Russian: Biblioteka 1mt!ni unina 'The Lenin Librnry">uninka
And in English:
Onha<lopaedic surgeon > orthopod
trnck driver > truckie
Wienbicka (1984) astutely notes that this usage is a form of solidarity, identity
sharing and social cohesion. People who share a language, an ethnicity, a set of values,
a common interest or hobby, or other common ground of identity or practice, will
often use diminulives among themsel ves, partly as a mark of in-group ownership and
shared knowledge, and partly to dilTercnLiate themselves from ouLSiders.
What is disLincLive about Australian English is that diminutives are extremely
richly developed over a wide range oflinguislic forms, especially nouns, boLh common
and proper (Simpson 2001). I have a data-base of around 5,000 such forms. In terms
of types, they rate significantly, at just under 5%, of the tOOJI headword count of a
standard dicLionary of Australian English like lhe Australian Oxford dictionary or the
Macquarie dictionary, bolh of which contain over I00,000 headword entries. But in
terms of tokens - the total number of words used in a text, not the number of dislinct
words - diminulives can often exceed 25%:
"I've got to go to Bundy (Bundaberg) on Friay."
"' You 'd beuer take the ute (ut1/11y). Piclc up some rockies (rod: melons) for your mum
(mother) on the way back. And I'd Jiu o carton of cab-sav (cabernn-sauvignon)from that
pub (public house) Mar Chi/den.··
"No worries. Is the diff (dijfert!ntial) on the ute (utility) ok now?"
"Hod it feecl last week when you Wert! in The Isa. (Mount Isa)"
"Grt!at. Maybe we can go to the footy (football) on Saturday night to see Vossy (Voss)
play?"'
These examples are far from atypical of Australian colloquial English, and show
diminULive forms of both common and proper nouns, including borrowed nouns
(cabernet and sauvignon). They are consistent with what Baker ( 1970, p. 366) calls
the "relentless fam iliarity" of Austral ian speech.
183
It Switch111g in lntcrnat1onal English
Competent speakers of AusLralian English use such forms much of the Lime.
Some terms like Aussie for Australian (noun or adjecLive) are even achieving inter-
naLional acceptance. While their frequency is less in careful speech, public speaking,
or writing, diminutives arc e ndemic in everyday conversaLion, especially in less
"educated" or less formal contexLS. Significantly, the absence of diminutives, espe-
cially in contexts where they are expected or a lready the default, can se ~d pot~nt
pragmatic and interpersonal signals. Male Australians in panicular, when di scuss~ng
the mechanics of cars, will routinely use carbie rather than carburerror. Or asking
for cabernet-sauvignon rather than cab-sav al the local liquo.r store can ind.icale
either a lack of familiari ty with wines, or an attempt LO take a higher conversauonal
position - a sLrategy which may not be appreciated. . ..
Diminutives in Australian English pose a genuine difficulty for tourists, v1s1tors,
incoming studenLS, migranLS, and for people conversing in English with Australian_s,
especially Australians who have less experience of communicat'.n~ in .English in
inLercultural contexLS. StudenLS of English are seldom exposed Lo diminutives as pan
of their language education, even if it is known that they are coming Lo Australia.
The first task is Lo understand diminulives, most of which are not yet recorded.
Understanding can require both an appreciation of the more than 20 dilTerent types
of formation involved:
Austrolwn - Aussie
cucumber - cuey
BMW Beemer
dert!lict ~rson - dero
Alice Springs- 7 he Alice
Hong Kong - Honkers
tatoo - tat
Barry BaUP
A not inconsiderable number of diminulives are homophones: jfarrie can mean
flat-bottomed boat, a fl at tyre, a flat shoe, a flat mate, or a fi sh called ajla1head. And
a number have allemalive forms: a flat tyre can be either jfarrie or fliJt, and an alco-
holic person is either an alkie or an alko. It is therefore necessary to work out which
feaLu rcs of the current discourse and context are relevant in order to recover a probable
meaning. One can alway a k for clarification; but after several requesLS that can
risk giving olTence by appearing to suggesLthat the other speaker cannot speak their
own language. I have seen Australians moderaLe lheir use of diminulives when they
know they are talking to, or are in Lhe company of, people (including ~Lhcr. LI
English speakers like Americans and Britons) who may not be attuned to this vaneLy
of language use. But comprehension remains a problem . ..
Once an L2 English speaker understands Australian diminuLivcs, Lhere is a decision
about whether, and when, to use Lhem - an issue which we have considered in relalion
to inshallah. The cultural-pragmaLic dynamics of diminulives are not stable. It is neces-
sary to know when they are not acceptable (e.g. in an academic essay); and, .if the
context docs permit Lhem, whether it is appropriate to do so. People who are obviously
L2 English speakers, by pronuncialion or other language features, ~an sound Prc:"ump-
tuous, imponunate, or just trying Loo hard, especially when speaking to Australian LI
 184
R. Susse•
English ~~ers. On ~e other hand, between friends the Ll/L.2 barrier rapidly lowers,
and ?ne s Chmcse, llahan, Greek and Vietnamese friends will use diminutivei. freely,
and mdeed will be expected to do so, especially in informal conversational contexis.
. Th~se issues.have not yet been thoroughly researched. Bui there are parallels
JO the mappro~na1~ use o~ other c_olloquial, demotic or vernacular language across
language bamers, mcludmg the madvenen1 violation of taboos (Dewaele 2004).
A well-known example occurred in They're a weird mob, a novel by Nino Culoua
( 1957) abou1 an Italian immigrant in Australia in the 1950s. The central character
Nino, whose English is halting and highly Italian, has heard " King's Cross" i~
S~d~ey referred 10 as " King's bloody Cross" from a taxi driver, and assumes tha1
this is the proper name of King's Cross. Bui when he laier asks a policeman for direc-
tions to " King's ~l~y Cross" the law takes substantial umbrage a1 wha1 appears
10 ~ a 1.ack o~ cJVJIHy. One should no1 switch slang from colloquial Australian
English m10 m1gran1 Italian English.
11.7 Towards a Conclusion
~wi1~hi~g is endemic in intercuhural English. It may occur a1 1he level of purely
hngu1s11c p~enomena (phonetic interference, morphological cross-language hybrids,
syntax, lex1s). It may be pragmatic, in the imponing of thanking conventions and
f~eque~cy_ from one langua~e-culture to another. And it can be purely cuhural, espe-
cially_m ~1tu~I and _conve~tJon: There are also many combinations. The three types
of sw1tchmg mvesugated JO this chapter - inshallah, epistemic think and Australian
d!minutives - ~II !nvolve, and are cued by, language. But they involve language in
different ways m 11S relatio n lo pragmatics and culture.
l~hallah in English is clearly a switch, an import, though in the speech of
~nglish-s~aki_ng Muslims it is probably more appropriate to analyse it as a borrow-
mg, a lexical item and a pragmatic practice fully integrated into their English-
language repenoire. For non-Muslims inshallah is striking, frequent, initially
obscure and clearly meaningful in ways which need to be explored and understood.
And when its impon is clarified, and non-Muslims understand what i1 means and
wh~ i1 is used by Muslims, the decision remains about whether to accommodate to
their usage and values, and use inshallah whe n Muslim discourse dictates, or nol.
Australian English diminutives offer a cross-English contrast of a different kind
a nd a ~iffe~en~ ~ssibili1y of switching for non-Australian English speakers:
Australian climmuuves are always phonologically related 10 some standard word.
F?r. no~-Austral i~ns (and indeed for some Australians) confronted by a novel
d1mmu11ve, there 1s an initial task of determining wha1 the base form of the word
or expres.sion is,_and how lhc diminutive form is to be imcrprctcd. The language
material is English, but of a particular geographical, and to some ex1en1 social
register. Unlike inshallah, a single unfamiliar lexical item, diminutives are varied'
dynamic, productive and creative. They also belong with a well known Australia~
penchant for language play and playfulness. The problem for the non-Australian is
11 Swi1ching in lnlcrnational English 185
whether 10 switch 10 accommodate to the Australian norms of diminulive-enriched
commurlication, and whether this accommodation will be successful or may actually
inhibit communication by appearing gratuitously intrusive.
Wierzbicka's epistemic think is an issue of switching of a different order. With
inshallah and Australian diminutives the language material is unfamiliar and provoca-
tively challenging. But with epistemic think the task is more subtle, and potentially
the more ominous in its implications precisely because the familiar forms conceal
differences of which we are nol aware. The language material is familiar; indeed,
perhaps too familiar, since native English speakers are, one may predict, unaware of
the kinds of pragmatic differences which Wierzbicka reveals, and the cultural impli-
cations which then follow. For the L2 English speaker, speaking in English, 1he shift
which involves following their LI patterns of epistemic think can have disruptive
consequences of communication by making the speaker appear too assertive,
brusque or pedantic without immediately obvious cause. Mutatis mu1andis, English
speakers can appear tentative or devious by avoiding direct assertions of facl, and
insisting on including I think.
In one important sense we can now see that Pennycook is right to insist on the
compromised nature of the concept of "system". Bilinguals using inshallah out of
their habitual cultural-communicative space, or Germans speaking English with a
German-based frequency and pauern of think-usage, are creating mixed codes on
the fl y, in response to contextual and interpersonal needs. Part of the problem is with
the word "switch" itself. "To swi1ch" implies deliberate, conscious choice. In speaking
languages other than English I often switch code deliberately, with interlocutors
who share with me the same language I pragmatic I culture knowledge. The motive
may be for communicative effectiveness, or the exercise of wit, or because of unex-
pected lexical or other gaps, especially in an L2, which emerge as a conversation
progresses. This is conscious language manipulation, the deliberate importing of
resources from a different bucket of expertise. The "differen1-ncss" of the bucket is
evident, and the motive is appreciated by the hearer. Such inter-language mixing is
indeed a matter of switching. Bui "mixing" is itself not a suitable replacement for
"switching", since it can imply either deliberate or inadvertenl action.
On the other hand, the perception of "otherness" in switched codes is unmistake-
able. Hearers of switched code arc aware of being offered something unfamiliar,
something which does not belong in the compendium of elements and processes
which they identify with their language - the code which does not arouse reactions
of "otherness". It may be that for speakers who are engaging - or indulging - in
switching, the perception of "otherness" is not as acute or objectively fell: one is, as
we saw above, mixing elements on the fly for the purposes of communication. If the
two systems are perceived by speakers and hearers to be different, then we would
expect some psycholinguistic evidence to support the difference: switching between
systems could be expected 10 involve some time cost. There is some evidence that
switches arc processed more slowly than monolingual LI input (Heredia and Altarriba
200 1), but ii is annoyingly equivocal, with some evidence showing similar processing
Limes on the receiving side for monolingual LI and Ll -L2 mixed texts for Hong
Kong Chinese speakers (Chan el al. 1983).
 11 Switching in Imcrnational English 187
186 R. Sussex

We can, then, envisage bilinguals without biculturalism: people who have studied
a language from books, perhaps for the purposes of reading academic texts in their
discipl ine. "Withou1" here is shorthand: it may be that a zero score for cultural content
is meaningless. But in such cases the cuhural content is low and the cultural goals
are restricted. Conversely, we can imagine bicuhurals without bilingualism: tourists
with 1cro or almost zero L2, but who are alert enough 10 cuhural pallems to function
competcnlly, at least to some extent, in different contexts outside the first language
and culture. We can then apply a similar line of argument to bilinguals without bi prag-
matism, which happens with speakers who can manage the linguistic forms without
controlling the pragmatic implications: they treat would you like to sit down ? as a
YES/NO question rather than as a polite request to be seated. Since "pragmatics",
in the wide sense, covers the ways in which contextual factors contribute to meaning,
it is possible (though not easy) to contemplate someone who understands, perhaps
from body language, what is going on, and responds accordingly, without under-
standing the language. And there are certainly speakers who are culturally competent
but whose linguistic and pragmatic skills are wanting.
In all these cases we are dealing not with binary YES/NO scores for linguistic,
pragmatic or cultural competence, but with gradient values. And the gradient values
have three points of evaluation: in the mind of the speaker, the mind of the hearer, and
the minds of onlookers. This is not the same as the scores in an individual's separate
(if we can use that term, pace Pennycook) languages: those are separate mailers.
ln this research agenda English in Asia emerges as a partner code, a lingua franca.
In this process English - whether global, glocal or local (Chap. 8 by Duong, this
volume) - will eenainly acquire sub tantial new language, pragmatic and culrural content
and processes. On the Web I happened across this characterization of English as a
predatory language:
English doesn't borrow from othu languages. English follows othu /anguagu down dark
alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grommar.http:lfwww.
reddil.cornlr/WTF/comments/ebloc/lil nmericnns_hnrdly_understand_roundaboulS_wlf/
c l6uwq9
Evans, N. 2009. Dying wards. Endangertd languages and what thty hav~ to tell us. Chichester/
Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Farghnl, M. 1995. The pragmatics of insallah in Jordanian Arabic. Multilrngua t4(3):. 253-270.
Ilercdia, R.R.H., and J. Altarriba. 2001. lnpulloutpul switch in bilingual code sw11ching. Curnlll
Dtn ct1ons in Psychological Science t0(5): 164-168 . .
Kachru, B.B. t 985. Standards, codificn1ion and sociolinguistic realism: The English l n~guagc in
the outer circle. In English in tht world: Tt aching and /earnin.g the la~gua~t and l1ttra1uns.
ed. R. Quirk and lt.G. Widdowson, t t-30. Cambridge: Cam~dge Unive~uy ~s. .
Kirkpatrick. A. 2007. World Eng/1shts: /mp/1catio":'1for.internatronal commumcatron and English
language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Universuy Press. . .
Masilyah. Sadok. 1999. A cross-cultural misunderstanding: The case of the Arabic cxp~s1on
Inshallah. "If God Wills". Dialog on l.Anguage Instruction. Defense l.Anguogt lnslllute,
Monttny. California 13(1- 2): 97-t 16. .
Myers·Scotton. C. 2002. Contact linguistics: Biltngual encounttrs and grommatrcal outcomes.
Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Nazzal, Ayman R. 200 J. The pragmatic function of Qur'anic verses: The cast .of INS~ M 'AU.Mi
in Arob1c discourse as a species of indirtctness. Albany. NY: SUN: PhD ~1ssenauon .
Ohashi, J. 2008. Linguistic rituals for 1hanking in Japanese: Balancing obhgauons. Journal of
Progmalics 40(2): 2 I 50-2174. .
Pham, T.1 1.N. 201I. Communicating with Vietnamese in tntercul111ral conttxS: Insights into
Vietnamese values. Hanoi: Education Publishing House. .
Simpson, J.I. 2001. Hypocoristics of place-names in Austrah~n ~nglish. In English in Austrolta.
ed. D. Blair and P. Collins, 89-112. Amsterdam: John BcnJamins. . . .
Sussex, R.D.. and P.V. Cubbcrley. 2006. The Slavic languages Cambridge: Cambndge University
Press. .
ling, S.-H .. and R. Sussex. 2002. Language choice of the Foochows in Sarawak. Malaysia.
Multilingua 2 1: 1- 15.
Wienbicka. A. 1984. Diminutives and dcpreciatives: Semantic representation for dcnvallonal cal-
cgories. Quaderni di semantica 5( I): t 23- 130 . .. ..
Wienbicka, A. 1996. Japanese cultural scriplS: Cuhurat psychology and cultural grammar ·
Ethos 24(3): 527- 555. . .
Wicnbicka. A. 2006. English. M~aning and cu/tun. Oxford/New York: Oxford Un1vers11y Press.

We can re-formulate this in the light of our discussion of switching and inshallah,
epistemic thinl< and Australian diminutives:
Engl1Sh doesn 't borrow from othu languages. It walks down the middle ofthe road, clothed
but sanorially curious. and says to the people it meets: " Would you like toshan my clothes,
and let 's see how we might make them fit ?''.

References

Baker. S. 1970. The Australian language, 2nd ed. Melbourne: Sun Books.
Chan, M. C.• H.L.11. Chau. and R. lloosain. 1983. Input/oulpul swilch in bilingual code switching.
Journal of Psycholinguistrc Ruuorch 12(4): 407-4 16.
Culotta. N. (pseudonym ofO'Grady, J.). 1957. TMy 'n a wdrd mob. Sydney: Ure-Smilh.
Dewaele, J.-M. 2004. The emotionnl force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of muhi-
lingunls. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Dtvtlopmmt 25(2 & 3): 204-223.