Bilingual Couples in Conversation

Abstract

In this sociolinguistic study, the speech and the modes of communication of ten bilingual couples were analysed, based on a corpus of in-depth interviews with both partners. My main aim was to draw a detailed picture of various areas pertaining to the communication between native speakers of English and Swiss partners who, despite being late bilinguals, have a high level of proficiency in English, their main couple language. Thus, important gaps in previous research on bilingual couples were filled, much of which is based on couples’ self-reports rather than their actual language use (Breger 1998; Khatib-Chahidi, Hill and Paton 1998) or concentrates on the female partner’s perspective (Heller and Lévy 1992). Studies on fluent couples have placed their focus on the discursive construction of a bilingual couple identity (Piller 2002a) or an individual bilingual identity (Gonçalves 2013). By contrast, I considered not only the couples’ reports on their linguistic practices and past experiences, but also analysed their language use during the interviews. Several areas of their speech were closely examined using qualitative as well as quantitative research methods, including the couples’ language choice, their language mixing, their manner of expressing emotions, their use of and reaction to swearwords, their attitudes towards their languages and cultures, and their production of humour and laughter. In addition, I investigated the influence of the bilinguals’ gender and mother tongue on various aspects of their language use. The analysis demonstrated that the couples’ language is predominantly English, with relatively little direct influence from the community language, Swiss German, and limited language mixing. Moreover, the bilinguals used only their main couple language to express emotions during the interviews, and also reported such a preference, in contrast to other bilinguals (Pavlenko 2008; Dewaele 2010). Nevertheless, the couples make use of their bilingualism in some very specific areas, for instance when coining neologisms and blended expressions, when using terms of endearment, when swearing, and when being humorous. Assimilation between the partners was evident in several areas, such as their language mixing behaviour, their swearing behaviour, and their attitudes; yet there was little indication of assimilation in the context of expressing emotions, or in the frequency and duration of laughter. At the same time, the participants’ gender and mother tongue were found to have a considerable influence on their expression of emotions, the number and type of language switches they used, the frequency of their swearing and the level offensiveness of their swearwords, as well as their laughter and their production and reception of humour. Thus, the analysis provides insights into the language practices of established bilingual couples, while also contributing to the fields of gender research and fluent sequential bilingualism.

List of transcription conventions

(adapted from Du Bois et al. 1993)

Final pitch movement, stress and tone

Pauses and organisation

Vocal noises

Voice quality, loudness, pitch

Marginal words

Metatranscription

List of terms and abbreviations

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the many people who offered guidance in my research and writing, especially PD Dr Sarah Chevalier and Professor Dr Andreas Fischer. I am very grateful to Andreas Fischer for encouraging me to pursue my research interests and for providing me with valuable direction whenever needed; and to Sarah Chevalier, for supervising my PhD thesis, for sharing my interest in the subject of my research, and for providing excellent advice in my research and very helpful commentaries on my writing. I would also like to thank Professor Dr Daniel Schreier, for kindly offering to be a co-advisor on my thesis and for his helpful feedback, and Professor Dr Martin Heusser, for designing the book cover.

Special thanks go to Jane Dewhurst and Peter Stäuber, for proof-reading critically and providing thoughtful feedback on my writing, and to Martina Gubler, for her advice in the creation of the title image. I am also thankful to Katharina Gerhardt (Narr Francke) and Professor Dr Stephan Schmid (Phonetisches Laboratorium) for their help, as well as to Christine Benesch and Nicoletta Ravizza for their advice on statistics. Furthermore, I would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) for financing the publication of this book.

I am also truly grateful to my family, especially to my wonderful parents, Irene und Stephan Tschachtli, for their love and support.

Last but not least, I want to express my deep appreciation to the ten bilingual couples who were the subject of my research. Thank you for devoting your time and for sharing so much about your private lives as bilingual couples and individuals. It is due to your readiness to tell your story and to engage in dialogue that this book was possible, and that my interest in the subject never faded.

1 Introduction

1.1 Bilingual couple communication

After my first semester of studying English at the University of Zurich, I met an interesting young Australian while we were both travelling in Italy. We had a long-distance relationship for a few years, ultimately got married and settled in my home country, Switzerland. Being in a bilingual, bicultural relationship has enriched my life in more ways that I could have imagined, while at the same time presenting challenges in other areas. It has also opened my eyes to many particularities in the discourse and communication of bilingual, bicultural couples and sparked a great interest in this topic. As a bilingual couple, we are in contact with other bilingual couples, and observing other bilingual relationships and comparing their communication to ours has also made me aware of many shared characteristics. However, I rarely find our own situation or the bilingual relationships around us mirrored or adequately described in literature on bilingualism, which has intensified my urge to study bilingual couple communication. On the one hand, linguistic research on bilingual couples has remained relatively scarce, even though studies in the area of individual bilingualism have been plentiful, covering areas as diverse as childhood bilingualism, second language acquisition, and the communication between people from different linguistic backgrounds. This omission is particularly surprising considering how many couples are actually bilingual, and given the diverse and interesting nature of communication among bilingual couples. On the other hand, the studies that do exist on bilingual relationships tend to focus on partners who do not speak the couple language fluently, who speak languages which are not closely related, and/or who are from very different cultural backgrounds (e.g. Rosenblatt and Stewart 2004; Beraud 2016). Only in recent years have couples with similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds shifted into focus, as researchers have begun to look at aspects such as couple identity and language desire (Piller 2002a; Gonçalves 2013). However, there are still many interesting aspects about the communication of bilingual couples that merit research, especially when it comes to partners in established relationships, who are proficient in their couple language.

Since bilingual couples exemplify a wide variety of language combinations and range of individual linguistic situations, they provide fertile ground for research on bilingualism. Depending on the bilinguals’ personal backgrounds, their aptitude for languages, their partner’s language skills and their place of residence, their competence in their partner’s native tongue can range from virtually non-existent to completely proficient. In some cases, both partners are fluent in both languages, while in others, one partner’s mother tongue is the exclusive couple language, or neither of the partners speaks the other’s language, but they speak a third language (lingua franca) instead. In theory, then, it is not even necessary for both partners in a bilingual relationship to become bilingual. At the same time, there can also be substantial differences in the partners’ level of motivation to learn each other’s language. Whereas for some, becoming bilingual is an involuntary — but perhaps a necessary — consequence of their relationship, others may have chosen their partner at least in part because of his or her native tongue, which allows them to immerse themselves in another language and to become or stay (fluent) bilinguals.

Furthermore, bilingual couple talk can offer insights into fluent bilingual communication in a manner in which few other types of bilingual interaction do. Many studies on bilingual interaction focus on one-time exchanges involving one or several bilingual speakers who often have limited language skills, rather than conversations between people who are accustomed to each other’s manner of speaking. Unlike the bilinguals investigated in such studies, people in long-term intimate relationships are used to interacting with one another; their modes of communication are thus more established than most other forms of bilingual interaction. As a consequence of their repeated interaction, the partners may learn how to read and interpret each other to some degree, and misunderstandings and conflicts may become less frequent over time. If the partners in a bilingual relationship have been together for an extensive period of time and are fluent in the couple language, their communication can be expected to be more advanced than that in most bilingual encounters.¹

Finally, another reason why bilingual couples can be a particularly interesting focus for the study of bilingual interaction is that communication tends to take a central role for couples. Communication may be important in any kind of relationship, but especially so in couple relationships, which depend on regular communication to develop and evolve. Thus, some even believe communication to be the sole major cause of marital happiness or marital failure in modern postindustrial societies (Piller 2002a: 5). As Crow puts it, [t]he couple can be viewed, in fact, as the institution in which conversation as a system reaches its fruition: Couples are formed in part to assure oneself a conversational partner with whom to develop a wealth of episodes, and conversation serves as a primary means of developing and enriching a relationship (1983: 140). Couples will necessarily develop a distinct manner of communicating over time, and adopt aspects of each other’s language use. In the case of bilingual couples, this process of assimilation might be even more marked than in monolingual couples, as language learning — even at an advanced level — is closely connected to imitation (Brown 1980: 43). Bilingual partners do not just learn aspects of the language itself from one another, but also how to cooperate with one another (for instance in turn-taking and integrating adequate pauses), and to support each other conversationally (for instance with back-channel signals or other-repetition). Fluent speakers in a long-term bilingual relationship therefore fulfil many of the requirements for successful bilingual communication and examining conversations between them should yield substantial insights into how bilingual communication works on a more advanced level.

In order to explore areas that have not been researched and to give an account of the communication of fluent bilingual couples, I recorded conversations of ten heterosexual bilingual couples, each consisting of a native English speaker and a native Swiss German speaker. In the transcriptions of their interviews, I included a large variety of suprasegmental features, ranging from terminal pitch to stress and voice quality. The comprehensive corpus resulting from the couples’ conversations and the elaborate transcriptions provided an ideal foundation to closely examine a range of features of their couple language. In order to reduce the number of variables influencing the couples’ communication, I chose couples who share a number of characteristics. For one, all of the couples mainly communicate in English with each other, even though all but one couple, who have a long-distance relationship, reside in Switzerland. While there are considerable differences in the (Swiss) German language skills of the English-speaking partners, all of the Swiss partners are highly proficient in English. All of the couples have been together for a considerable period of time, and lived apart from each other in different countries for some of this time. This means that they have had to face and deal with issues that commonly arise in bilingual, bicultural relationships and have become well acquainted with each other’s cultures. The long duration of their relationships increases the likelihood that they have attained a high level of communicative competence in their couple language, and that they have also adopted features from each other’s manner of speaking. It can be expected that all of the couples have developed their own modes of communication, in addition to having a wealth of shared experiences to report, intercultural or otherwise. Consequently, the analysis of these interviews will provide insights into the communication of established bilingual couples, whilst simultaneously filling some gaps in the field of fluent sequential bilingualism.

1.2 Aim and research questions

The main aim of this book is to paint a comprehensive picture of the communication in a bilingual, bicultural relationship between proficient, culturally aware bilinguals. In this context, a number of questions present themselves. Which language(s) do the couples choose to communicate in, and what are the reasons behind this choice? To what extent do they mix languages, and what influences their mixing behaviour? What are the partners’ attitudes towards their bilingual, bicultural relationship? How do partners in a bilingual relationship express positive and negative emotions? How do fluent bilinguals swear, and what affective attachment do expletives in both of their languages have for them? What role do humour and laughter play in their conversations, and what do the couples laugh about? And, finally, do their different mother tongues and their gender have an effect on a variety of areas of their communication?

In order to answer these questions, I give a detailed account of several areas, investigating various aspects pertaining to each of these areas. On the one hand, I use qualitative research methods to give an overview of the couples’ language, experiences, thoughts, and attitudes towards a variety of aspects pertaining to their bilingual, bicultural relationships. Hence, I look at which language(s) the couples choose to communicate in what situations, what the reasons for this choice are and how and why their couple language has evolved over the course of their relationship. This includes their language mixing and factors that influence their mixing behaviour. I also consider the interviewees’ attitudes towards various aspects of their bilingual, bicultural relationship and the manner in which they deal with expressing positive and negative emotions in their second language. Moreover, I look at the bilinguals’ reported language preference for swearing, their emotional attachment to swearwords in both languages and their reactions to their partner’s use of swearwords. I also discuss the challenge of conveying and understanding humour in a second language, as well as the role of humour and playful language in the couples’ communication. All of these areas are explored by means of a content analysis as well as a close linguistic analysis of the couples’ speech and interaction.

On the other hand, I use quantitative research methods to investigate a number of hitherto rather neglected areas in the language of fluent bilinguals. I examine the bilinguals’ language switches with regard to a variety of features and determine whether there are any differences in the participants’ mixing behaviour arising from their mother tongue or their gender. I explore the manner in which they convey positive and negative emotions during the interviews, and look at the frequency with which they use emotion words, the suprasegmental features and terminal pitch accompanying emotion words, and the correlation between the use of emotion words and the bilinguals’ gender and mother tongue. Moreover, I examine their use of swearwords during the interviews and the role which their mother tongue and gender play in their swearing behaviour. Finally, I also look at who and what triggers laughter in the bilinguals’ speech, their use of laughing and smiling voice quality, similarities in the partners’ laughing behaviour and humour styles, but also differences in their laughing behaviour based on their mother tongue and gender.

Thus, my study encompasses both the analysis of participants’ actual language use and modes of communication as demonstrated in the interviews, and the analysis of the couples’ own reports about their linguistic behaviour and their relationships. Throughout, I tend to follow a grounded theory approach, taking my own material as the basis from which I observe behaviours and set up taxonomies, albeit bearing previous findings in mind, rather than superimposing existing theoretical frameworks onto my material. In my analysis, I explore intercultural, linguistic, as well as self-reflective and psychological aspects. This combination of different research methods and the broad range of topics that are examined will ensure a comprehensive picture of the modes of communication utilized by the bilingual couples.

1.3 Limitations

Of course, the communication between any two people is so complex that it would be impossible to give a complete account of it, and it has been necessary to omit certain aspects. For instance, nonverbal communication such as facial expressions, eye-contact, and other elements of body language, are not considered in the analysis, as, on the one hand, this would have exceeded the scope of this book, and, on the other hand, I wanted the interviewees to feel comfortable and speak as naturally as possible, and a camera might have made them feel more self-conscious than an audio recording device. All aspects of conversational analysis are thus based on their verbal expression and prosodicfeatures alone. Moreover, the issue of conversational breakdowns is not considered, and the topic of the construction of couple identity as well as cross-cultural identity in bilingual couples are not explored at length, as this has already been examined elsewhere (see Piller 2002a; Gonçalves 2010a, 2013).

Thus, the main focus of my analysis is on a selection of aspects I believe to be of particular interest about this specific combination of languages and cultures, and about couples with such a high level of proficiency in the relationship language. This narrow focus entails that no universal statements about the communication in bilingual relationships can be made based on this research. In my opinion, however, this does not represent a problem. As Okita puts it, a small-scale study may not aim to make "empirical generalisations, i.e. generalisations from a sample to a wider population, based on [the] representativeness of the sample. Rather, it should aim for theoretical generalisation, an explanation of how and why things happened in specific settings, and identifying the key explanatory factors in the process, from which questions can be asked about ‘lessons for other settings’, or wider resonance" (2002: 62, emphases in original). Thus, even though the results of this study may not be representative for bilingual, bicultural couples in general, they still give us an understanding of how bilingual couples with these specific parameters communicate. The study reveals that there are countless variables that factor into each couple’s language and into each instance of bilingualism. But precisely because there are myriad forms of bilingualism, it is important to examine individual cases such as these in order to further our understanding of all facets of bilingualism.

1.4 Outline

This book is structured as follows. To begin with, I present a short overview of the language situation in Switzerland, which is the place of residence of the couples in this book (chapter 2). The linguistic makeup of the country is rather complex, partly due to its multilingualism, but also due to the diglossic situation in the German-speaking part of the country. I also describe the role of the English language in Switzerland, both as an influence on local varieties and as an important language in education, tourism, and commerce. This contextual information is important, as the attitudes and language ideologies attached to these different varieties may be an important factor with regard to the couples’ language choice.

In the subsequent chapter, I give an overview of previous work on bilingual, bicultural couples, and define some important terms with reference to biculturalism and bilingualism (chapter 3). For the sake of clarity, I discuss research on bicultural and on bilingual couples separately, as although the two are closely related, most research concentrates on one or the other. In each part, I also present an outline of the challenges bilingual, bicultural couples may face. In this chapter, I only discuss general aspects of research on bilingual, bicultural couples. An overview of more specific studies in the areas which are examined in this book is offered in the corresponding chapters.

Chapter 4 describes the sample and research methods. I present an overview of the most important information relating to each interviewee, as well as a short biography of each couple. In addition, I outline my interviewing methodology and the design of the questionnaire that formed the basis of the interviews. The transcription conventions are also described, as well as the software used for transcribing the interviews and analysing the data. The chapter also includes a discussion of the difficulties that I encountered during the process of data collection and analysis.

After the description of the setting, subjects and methodology for data collection, I present the main body of my analysis, which has been divided into six chapters. I begin in chapter 5 with what may be the most influential factor in determining the manner in which the couples communicate, namely their language choice. After outlining the factors that have been found to influence language choice in bilinguals, I discuss the couples’ reported language use with each other, and the reasons behind this. In addition, their language use outside the home is discussed, as this may be connected to their language proficiency, attitudes, and/or level of integration. In the same chapter, I also document some aspects that the couples report as unusual about their way of communicating. This includes topics such as moderating their manner of speaking, and the high level of communication and mutual understanding that they claim to have achieved as a result of their different backgrounds.

Chapter 6 examines the couples’ language mixing behaviour. This chapter is a combination of the couples’ reports on their language mixing on the one hand, and their mixing behaviour during the interviews on the other. In order to analyse their language mixing, I distinguish between code-switches and borrowings, between hedged and unhedged switches, and between spontaneous and metalinguistic switches. The participants’ language switching behaviour is then analysed with reference to a number of variables, such as their family situation, mother tongue and gender, and compared to their reports about their mixing behaviour and their views on language mixing.

After this, I turn to more specific areas in the couples’ communication and relationships. In chapter 7, I look more closely at the topics of attitude and attraction, as these influence the couples’ linguistic behaviour considerably. I discuss parallels in what the participants found attractive about each other initially, as well as the development of their attitudes towards their partners’ language and culture over the course of their relationship. Moreover, I examine their views on being a bilingual, bicultural couple, and discuss the expectations, hopes and worries the couples voice with regard to raising bilingual children. As the topic of raising bilingual children has been widely researched and documented, this aspect is discussed only briefly; nevertheless, it is included in the interests of comprehensiveness. Furthermore, children may also have an influence on the language use of a bilingual couple, and the partners’ private language planning gives us clues about covert attitudes.

The topic of expressing emotions in a bilingual relationship is addressed in chapter 8. In this chapter, I examine which terms the couples use to express positive and negative emotions during the interviews, as well as the voice quality and terminal pitch accompanying the expression of emotions. I also analyse to what extent speakers with different genders or mother tongues differ in their expression of emotion. The couples’ thoughts on expressing positive and negative emotions in a second language are also discussed, as are potential issues for their relationship that arise from their situation, and strategies for dealing with these issues.

In chapter 9, the bilinguals’ use of swearwords is analysed. I discuss both their reported use of swearwords and their swearing behaviour during the interviews, with particular focus on their language choice, as well as the role of gender, mother tongue, nationality and family situation. Furthermore, I explore the interviewees’ reactions to their partners’ use of swearwords, and the taboos associated with swearwords in their first and second language.

Finally, I look at the role and function of humour and laughter in the couples’ conversations (chapter 10). I first analyse the manner in which the couples use humour during the interviews, with particular attention to the topics that trigger laughter, as well as who laughs about whom, and with what frequency. I also discuss the participants’ use of a laughing and smiling voice quality during the interviews, and see if any aspects of their laughing behaviour seem to be influenced by the factors of gender or mother tongue. In the second part of the chapter, I offer an overview of the bilinguals’ reports on their individual and couple humour. In addition, challenges that are brought about by cultural and linguistic differences in humour are examined, as well as shared couple humour. In this context, I also explore an aspect that many of the couples report as typical of the manner in which they communicate, namely the use of playful language, for instance by inventing words or imitating accents, as all of this is usually done in a humorous key. In the final chapter (chapter 11), I then provide a short overview of the most important findings of my analysis, and discuss the implications of these results for future research.

2 Language situation in Switzerland

2.1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the language situation in Switzerland with regard to the country’s multilingualism as well as the diglossic situation in the German-speaking part. Both of these aspects are potentially relevant for the couples’ attitudes towards their two languages and may therefore influence their language choice and use. Moreover, the role and status of English in Switzerland is examined, as well as the linguistic and ideological challenges Anglophone immigrants may face there. With regard to all of these topics, the chapter concentrates on the German-speaking regions of Switzerland, because the interviewees live in this area.

2.2 Multilingualism in Switzerland

In 2016, Switzerland had a population of about 8.4 million people, 24.9% of whom were foreign nationals (BFS 2017).² Switzerland is officially a quadrilingual country, with four national languages: German, French, Italian and Romansh. However, Swiss nationals are seldom fluent in all (or even two) of these languages, and many people do not grow up in a bilingual environment. Rather, each of the four national languages is spoken within a specific territory which is effectively monolingual (with the exception of a few bilingual areas). In the 2014 survey on the population’s main language(s), 63.3% of the population indicated (Swiss) German, 22.7% French, 8.1% Italian, and 0.5% Romansh as their main language. A total of 22.3% of the population named a non-local language as their main language (or one of their main languages); English was spoken as a main language by 4.6% of the population (BFS 2016a).³ While not all inhabitants use other languages regularly, at least two foreign languages⁴ are usually learnt at school. Moreover, 38.7% of the adult population indicated in the 2014 census that they regularly use more than one language privately and/or professionally (BFS 2016a).

Even though the majority of the Swiss population may be confined to mainly using one language in their daily lives, it has been noted that being a multilingual country is part of the Swiss national self-image and cultural identity (Stevenson 1997: 22; Murray 2003a: 103). Consequently, it is often argued — especially in political debates — that the Swiss should be multilingual and able to communicate with each other in their national languages as a way to better mutual understanding (Murray 2003a: 103). As Rash points out, the acquisition of a second national language is often seen as central to intercommunal harmony (2003: 123). At the same time, many Swiss recognize the importance of speaking English well in an international context, which is why second language teaching is a hotly debated topic. There is disagreement concerning which foreign language should be learnt first in each canton — a national language or English — and at what age these foreign languages should be acquired. In 2004, it was decided that all Swiss students should start learning a second language in third grade, and a third language in fifth grade. One of these languages has to be a national language, but apart from that it is up to each canton to decide which foreign languages their students will learn, and in what order. This new curriculum, the Lehrplan 21, has been introduced at schools in most cantons (Lehrplan 21, 2017). As a result, English is currently the first foreign language taught in 16 of the German-speaking cantons. However, some German-speaking cantons do not follow the rule that a third language has to be introduced by the fifth grade, and do not start teaching it until the ninth grade. This recently led federal council member Alain Berset to impose an ultimatum on all cantons, which was front-page news in many Swiss newspapers (e.g. Häfliger and Burri 2016). On the other hand, a popular initiative in the canton of Zurich which aimed to postpone learning one foreign language until secondary school (seventh grade) was rejected by the majority of the voters (60.8%) in May 2017. The fact that there are frequent headlines and political discussions on the topic of second language teaching in schools shows both the controversial nature of the topic and the importance attributed to language learning in Switzerland (see also section 2.4, English in Switzerland).

2.3 Diglossia and the ideology of dialect

All of the Swiss who were interviewed originate from the German-speaking part of Switzerland. In this area, around thirty mostly Alemannic dialects of German are spoken, which are mutually intelligible (Watts 2001: 301). The linguistic makeup of this part of the country is somewhat unusual because of its diglossia. In diglossic situations, regional dialects (traditionally called the L variety by researchers) co-exist with a more standardized variety of the same language (H variety) — in this case Swiss German (L) and Standard German (H).⁵ Referring to Switzerland among other countries, Charles Ferguson proposed the following classic definition of diglossia:

DIGLOSSIA is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language […], there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, […] which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation. (1959: 244–245, emphasis in original)

According to Ferguson, the varieties differ not only in the contexts in which they are used, but also in the prestige attributed to each. He states that the H variety is regarded as superior to the L variety in a number of respects, and is often viewed as more beautiful, more expressive, more logical (1959: 248).

However, this does not seem to be the case for the two varieties in Switzerland nowadays, and a number of researchers have remarked on the high prestige which Swiss German carries for German-speaking Swiss. Watts believes that the fact that the local dialects are valued more highly than Standard German in Switzerland these days is the result of an ideology of dialect which has developed over the last century (1999: 71). In such a situation, the symbolic value of the dialects in the majority of linguistic marketplaces in which they are in competition with the standard is not only believed to be much higher than that of the standard but is also deliberately promoted as having a higher value (Watts 1999: 69). Thus, Swiss German is attributed positive characteristics by contrast with Standard German, and many Swiss find the former more down-to-earth, more honest, more communicative, more direct, and, in general, more Swiss than standard German (Watts 1999: 75).

The ideology of dialect is continually promoted by the Swiss media and educational system (Watts 1999: 89), as well as by the German-speaking Swiss themselves. As an example, Gonçalves found that the native speakers of Swiss German as well as English in her study repeatedly reproduced the ideology of dialect in their discourse. Most of the native speakers of English she interviewed value Swiss German more highly than Standard German, as they position and align themselves with Swiss German native speakers and their respective language ideologies (2013: 151). The rise of the ideology of dialect may also have contributed to a shift in the domains in which the two varieties are used. Swiss German is now used far more frequently on the radio and on television, as well as in informal writing, such as text messaging. Consequently, the situation in Switzerland can be seen as a case of leaky diglossia, as one variety ‘leaks’ into the functions formerly reserved for the other (Fasold 1984: 41).

Not only does Swiss German have a high symbolic value in Switzerland, many Alemannic Swiss also perceive it as central to their identity. As Watts points out, for the German-speaking Swiss, the dialect functions […] as a badge of Swissness, an emblem of ‘belonging’ to Switzerland, which is more powerful than any other emblem (1999: 75). Hence, the local dialect "serves as one of the most powerful markers if not the most powerful marker, of local, rather than national identity (Watts 1999: 69, emphasis in original). Consequently, most Alemannic Swiss consider their dialect of Swiss German — rather than Standard German — to be their mother tongue (Watts 1999: 72) and may even classify Standard German as a ‘foreign language’ (Watts 1988: 328). In fact, many German-speaking Swiss do not enjoy speaking Standard German and, given the choice, would far rather communicate in English to a foreigner than in standard German" (Watts 1999: 75).⁶

Since dialects are so central to the Swiss identity, they are an essential part of integration in Swiss society. As Lüdi points out, Swiss German is constitutive of the personal and group identity of Alemannic Swiss. The use of dialect is one of the strongest in-group signals. As a consequence, dialect knowledge takes on a kind of test function in the evaluation, by the host community, of the […] migrant’s will and ability to integrate (1996: 111). Hence, a working knowledge of Swiss German, probably even more so than Standard German, is essential for immigrants if they want to integrate into Swiss society. This is supported by Gonçalves’ study on bilingual couples in Switzerland (see section 3.3.2, Bilingual couples), for whom the cultural capital is felt to be represented by the local dialect rather than by Standard German (2013: 142). Gonçalves remarks that, while the Federal Office of Migration lists knowledge of a national language as an important criterion for immigrants who intend to stay for an extended period of time, immigrants actually need to learn a local dialect in order to integrate:

According to the Federal Office of Migration, learning a national language is a key factor for ‘successful’ integration. My data, however, indicates that learning standard German does not give foreign nationals a sense of being integrated, but perpetuates the feeling of ‘difference’ and ‘foreignness’. In fact, understanding and speaking the local dialect rather than standard German contributed to individuals’ sense of belonging and integration. (2013: 163)

Gonçalves concludes that, because Swiss German dialects are used in social interaction, speaking Standard German is not enough to guarantee successful integration (2013: 196). Instead, for the Anglophone immigrants in her study, ‘successful’ integration meant being competent in the local Bernese dialect rather than standard German. In fact, all of the participants who attempted to learn standard German were met with frustration […] (2010a: 258). Thus, the local variety of Swiss German takes precedence over Standard German in Switzerland in terms of integrative potential as well as communicative effectiveness and cultural prestige.

2.4 English in Switzerland

Like many other nations, the Swiss are subjected to an ever-swelling tide of English language, flooding over them in the form of pop music, films, satellite television and internet sites (Murray 2003a: 98). The high prestige of the language and its omnipresence in entertainment and the media have led to a number of English loanwords being taken up by local varieties. English loanwords are commonly used in advertising, but also by many Swiss, who feel that it makes their language sound more up-to-date or sophisticated (Murray 2003a: 100). As Murray points out, Swiss-German Anglicisms appear in a range of registers and sociolects, for instance in youth language or the business/work register (2003a: 100). Yet the influence of English is not limited to individual loanwords in specific contexts. Rather, the language has found its way, both lexically and syntactically, into the oral and written language usage of speakers of Swiss German, German, French and Italian in Switzerland (Watts 2001: 304). This should be kept in mind when one analyses the language mixing behaviour of the bilinguals in this book, in order to avoid confusing established loanwords with nonce borrowings.

Of course, many Swiss have mixed feelings about the influence of the English language, as can be seen in the following quotation:

For some, embracing English means catching up with the future and assuring Switzerland a leading place in the ‘knowledge society’ of the twenty-first century. For others, letting in the Trojan horse of English means opening the gates to a worldwide phenomenon that will ultimately destroy part of the linguistic and cultural heritage of multilingual Switzerland. (Murray 2003a: 105)

Watts paraphrases a 1989 report on the language situation in Switzerland in which English is presented as an ominous presence threatening the harmonious coexistence of the four national languages within Switzerland (2001: 308). This discourse seems to persist even though linguists postulate that the use of English as a lingua franca in Switzerland is unlikely to become the norm and should not be presented as a threat (Andres and Watts 1993: 126). Given this ambivalence that many Swiss feel with regard to the language, it is not surprising that the introduction of English at primary school level is such a controversial issue (see section 2.2, Multilingualism in Switzerland).

English is also used frequently in a private and professional context among the Swiss population, though there is great local variation in the frequency of its use. English is spoken most commonly as a home language in the major urban regions and economic centres such as Zurich, Geneva and Basle, as well as in the tourist regions (Lüdi and Werlen