Role and functions of code-switching in Malaysian courtrooms

David, Maya Khemlani

doi:10.1515/mult.2003.005

Cited by 26 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main forms of code‐switching identified in Malaysian courtrooms (e.g. David 1993; 2003; Powell 2008), are: lexical code‐mixing (typically, the insertion of single words or phrases from one language into a matrix of the other); intra‐ and intersentential code‐switching (language alternation between clauses); code‐shifting (alternation when addressing different interlocutors); and non‐accommodating alternation (where interlocutors speak to each other in their respective preferred languages without need of an interpreter to understand each other).…”

Section: Discussion: Comparing the Strengths And Weaknesses Of Languamentioning

confidence: 99%

Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration

Powell¹,

Hashim²

2011

World Englishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on extensive observations of courtroom proceedings and more limited observations of arbitration practice, this study compares how each system approaches language disadvantage. In Malaysian common law the usual constraints on courtroom discourse, institutionalised by de jure rules of speaking and reinforced by professional practice, are supplemented by a language policy, enshrined in the constitution, statutes and judicial directives, which requires the use of Malay while also allowing English where deemed in the interests of justice. The result is a bilingual system, with all other languages admissible only through interpretation. In the fast-growing alternative dispute sector, however, there are few hard and fast rules governing either code choice or discourse. With most Malaysian arbitrations involving commercial disputes, English is the dominant medium, but as in the courts, English-Malay code-switching is common. Ways of speaking are generally more relaxed than in the courts, but with a majority of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) advocates coming from common law, many discursive practices are carried over. While the more relaxed atmosphere of ADR seems to encourage freer discourse than in the courts, there are some indications that current practice may be underestimating the needs of participants who are less proficient in English. The stricter rules imposed on courtroom discourse may inhibit free discussion but they do reveal a high awareness of the problems of language disadvantage.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Comparing the Strengths And Weaknesses Of Languamentioning

confidence: 99%

Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration

Powell¹,

Hashim²

2011

World Englishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mazrui and Mazrui (1998) argue, in the African context, that marginalized languages are simply denied an opportunity to develop a legal register. Emphasising some of the wider discourse characteristics rather than vocabulary and grammar, by contrast, David (2003) has shown how Malaysian lawyers code-switch from BM to English in order to emphasize a point, confirming that use of the English language is itself an indicator of power.…”

Section: Attack the Linguistic Properties Of The Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating language status in multilingual jurisdictions: Rhetoric and reality

Leung

2016

Semiotica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

About a quarter of legal jurisdictions in the world operate in more than one language. Despite this, language policies governing the functioning of law in such jurisdictions, other than in the European Union, rarely receive much attention in research. Given, however, that the policy contrast between legal monolingualism and multilingualism is often a matter of strategic response to the rising or declining power of one or more particular language communities,

show abstract

“…Many researchers in sociolinguistics provided definitions for code-switching and code-mixing. For instance, David (2003) defined code-switching as a communication tool that people use to decompensate a linguistic lack. Additionally, Milroy and Muysken (1995) viewed code-switching as an alternative way used by bilinguals of two or more languages within an utterance.…”

Section: Literature Review 21 Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Code-Switching and Code-Mixing by Speakers of Emirati Arabic (EA)

2019

JLLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the usage of code-switching and code-mixing by Arabic speakers of Emirati dialect. It also examines the extent to which the age and gender of the participants may affect this usage. For the purpose of the study, twenty Arabic speakers of Emirati dialect were interviewed to answer simple questions that may direct them to code-switch and/or code-mix in their speech. They were divided into two groups according to their gender and age. The results revealed that Arabic speakers of Emirati dialect code-switch and code-mix while answering the target questions. The results also showed that the social variables, namely, age and gender had a substantial impact on their use of these phenomena.

show abstract

Role and functions of code-switching in Malaysian courtrooms

Cited by 26 publications

References 4 publications

Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration

Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration

Negotiating language status in multilingual jurisdictions: Rhetoric and reality

The Use of Code-Switching and Code-Mixing by Speakers of Emirati Arabic (EA)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About