Little effort has been made towards theintegration of the findings on switching of languages amongmulti-linguals into beneficial theory despite the broad research thathas been made. Further, there are several settings of multi-lingualsin which code or language switching have not been studied. Forinstance, the similarity between thepractice of switching languages and that of switching codes orregister is yet to be explored though the behaviors seem to beequivalent regarding functionality. In other words, code and languageswitching as communicative strategies are yet to find their place inthe intercultural communication theory and research. This essay will,therefore, try to undertake such kind of integration throughundertaking a synthesis of some of the studies that have beenattempted thus far towards making language switching part of severalmultiethnic or multilingual settings thenit has been realized in the past. There will be synthesizing of thefindings into some focused theory which is viable which has beennoticed by several researchers as having a lack of the interculturalcommunication theory (Lyu, andRen-Yuan484). Moreover, comparisons between these findings shall bemade, and their strengths and weaknesses established so as come upwith a definite position of language switching in the variousmulti-linguals or multiethnic settings.

The choice of language involves theidentification of an individual who contains a social role and statusthat is relative to the status of the interlocutor. As amisidentification the choice of language is important. Curzansays, “For those teaching at universities where an undergraduatelinguistics course is required, we should seize the opportunity tohelp students understand how fundamental linguistics is to teachEnglish language arts.” In writing and arguments languageinnovation cannot be suitably engendered through teaching wordplaywhich id creative, this just happens on its own (Curzan115). The main critics of teaching should clearly point out that someof the innovators who include Shakespeare lacked the encouragement ofteachers and other people among the multi-linguals and themulti-cultural and their innovations have greatly influenced how wetalk and argue for many years. Some authors fail to acknowledge thekind of support which Shakespeare and the innovators received(Themistocleous 284). When arguing the works of Shakespeare may beseen to be politically rebellious since they lacked support from thepower halls and they had a popular claim. Shakespeare became free towrite plays which led to lesser-known infamy for writers. The supportof the establishment necessarily did not affect the creativity thoughhe did not take into consideration the impact of the multi-lingualsand the multi-cultural.

The choice of language involves theidentification of an individual who contains a social role and statusthat is relative to the status of the interlocutor. Accordingto Jeff Zorn, students have rights to their own language. He says, “Ilearned English teaching under the guidance of a woman who was anAfrican American” he argues “the study of the right of thestudents’ to own language is a resolution affirmation of thelegitimacy of the dialect which this is not the real understandingsince the students should acquire language skills and it should notbe necessarily an affirmation by the legitimacy of dialect from theEnglish Teachers National Council.” (Zorn 317). The right of thestudents to own language is the official statement of the collegecompositionists regarding the dialect difference. The Culturaldifference should highly consider when teaching language and respectshould be maintained among other cultures and difference among thelearners and the teachers should be observed. As a misidentificationthe choice of language is important. In writing and argumentslanguage innovation cannot be suitably engendered through teachingwordplay which id creative, this just happens on its own. The maincritics of teaching should clearly point out that some of theinnovators who include Shakespeare lacked the encouragement ofteachers and other people among the multi-linguals and themulti-cultural and their innovations have greatly influenced how wetalk and argue for many years. Some authors fail to acknowledge thekind of support which Shakespeare and the innovators received(Themistocleous 284). Thermistocleous says “you cannot mix anydialects at work for easy understanding”. When arguing the worksof Shakespeare may be seen to be politically rebellious since theylacked support from the power halls and they had a popular claim.Shakespeare became free to write plays which led to lesser-knowninfamy for writers. The support of the establishment necessarily didnot affect the creativity though he did not take into considerationthe impact of the multi-linguals and the multi-cultural.

The language is true to the standard language.The language facilitating the growth and development shouldhave been developed from the culture of the user and it should beethical to other cultures in order to facilitate communication andethical values among the users. In contrast Young talks of theteaching in colleges arguing that there exist only one system ofspeaking and writing and that these ways of writing and speaking arevery to enable the multi- cultural and the multi-linguals to go aheadin life as far as the use of language is involved. He says “theteachers who write should clearly mind of the different orthodoxieswhich have been taken into a hold in the world of composition.” Hebelieves that children and students have the right to own a languageonly if the language is capable of building and developing them(Young 115). He argues “language serves as a device which protectsthe status quo but in real sense language is not the main reason towhy teaching is done to students.”“The best option is to viewpeople multi-linguals and we expand our perspectives concerning goodwriting and good language and accept language diversity hence workingtowards the expansion of language and writing”. Ann Amicucci says“while texting one has to slung words andhas to lingo in order to talk better and understand what is beingtalked about. In examining students’ literacy practices outsideschool, many scholars have obtained a morenuanced understanding of students’ overall literacies, includingthose occurring in academic settings”. Ann lays much emphasize onthe importance of showing students and the teachers in the program ofeducation the introductory linguistic activities (Amicucci 489). Butlanguage is not about the introduction or the beginning of speechesand writings it is the overflow of ideas and the understanding ofideas by the people from different cultures. Ann Amacussiargues that in every introductory course there exists the power tocounter the linguistic positioning which is marginalized in theeducation process through showing the students the importance oflinguistics in the process of teaching English and by making themaware that language should cater for the given culture (Amicucci486). According to Ann Amucussi “thedigital literacies field research is living and contains the ideasfor the use of college students’ digital literacy practices whichare non-academic in the writing classroom.” In assessing this it isnot possible for any writing to b non-academic since every aspect inwriting builds the student and the learner thus instilling knowledgeabout literacy skills which are applicable in and outside theclassroom.

From the discussion, a major theme can bederived that nature of the boundary between speech communities,influences which the members of the said communities are likely togain access to the types of background knowledge and linguisticresources, make code switching meaningful and accessible to them as asocial and communicative strategy. Moreover, the use of codeswitching which they make together with other language contactphenomena is a social and communicative goalsthat can be attained by code-switching (Zorn, 322). Finally, therecan be developed an exploration of the generalizing aspect of thefindings on the social conditions upon which code-switching may ormay not be found. The possibility may be taken as code switching tobe a representation of one of the several ways in which communicativeresources can be utilized to the same ends in the same culturalsituations.

At another level, an approach which iscontext-embedded can result in an analysis on the mannerisms on whichcode-switching can develop as a communicative resource for theaccomplishment of communicative tasks in social interactions that arespecific. Code switching is a representation of the ability ofan individual towards the creative exploitation of conventionalassociations between language patterns use and social activities.Through the violation of conventions, code switching forcesinterlocutors to start questioning the expectations and assumptionsthey make, but because the violation is patterned, it focuses on theissue of taken-for-granted context that has a great need forreinterpretation (Curzan 112). There is aneed for future research to examine the existing relationship betweencode-switching and other communicative strategies forms that serve inthe re-definition of the reference frames, explicitly or implicitly.Also, there is to make an examination of the ways individuals learnto deduce from their communicative resources and the other backgroundforms of knowledge for the creation of meaning.

Through the examination of the position of codeswitching in the respective verbal repertoiresand the emergence, disappearance or development it has over time,there should be a possibility of the exploration of the relationshipsit has with other communicative resources forms and to referencechanging frames. The relationship between code-switching andother communicative resources kinds, majorly other language phenomenaforms, is important, due to its provision of individuals with aglimpse of the several communicative resources available to speakers(Zorn, 322) the same as to the ways through which the resources canbe utilized in the communicative strategies creation.

The development of code-switching patterns withtime is also important as a starting point for the examination of theways through which communicative forms are embedded in the dynamiccultural conditions. Therefore, thereremains a big deal to be discovered as far as the position of theintercultural communicative strategies is concerned, which on theother hand contribute towards the development of modified or newstrategies.

Linguistic critics may argue that code switching as acommunicative strategy has not yet found a placein intercultural communication strategy. The authors have not yetdiscovered that when a language is being taught to diverse peoplefrom different cultures and the cultural difference are respected bythe teachers and learners. “Then this proves that the language is acommunication strategy” that has found its place as a communicationstrategy in multi-ethical communication.(Lyu and Ren, 86 Some authorsargue that a language is a device for protecting their statusquo, however, they do not realize that a language should not onlyfocus on what its purpose is, such as to be used in speeches orformal writings. “It is a device that creates an understandingof ideas by people from diverse cultures”. As multilingualargue a good language should accommodate diversity from otherlanguages so as to come to a common agreement in order to improve theuse of the language (Curzan,57). Students and teachers should own alanguage if the language is used to bring them to a commonunderstanding while respecting or borrowing from their diverselanguages.

Works Cited

Amicucci, Ann N. &quotHow they really talk.&quot Journal ofAdolescent &amp Adult Literacy 57.6 (2014): 483-491.

Auer, Peter,ed.&nbspin conversation: Language, interaction and identity.Routledge, 2013.

Auer, Peter.&quotA postscript: code-switching and social identity.&quot&nbspJournalof pragmatics&nbsp37.3(2005): 403-410.

Curzan, Anne. &quotLinguistics mattersResistance and relevance in teacher education.&quot Language 89.1(2013): e1-e10.

Lyu, Dau-Cheng, and Ren-Yuan Lyu. &quotLanguageidentification on code-switching utterances using multiple cues.&quotINTERSPEECH. 2008.

Poplack,Shana. &quot (linguistic).&quot&nbspInternationalencyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences&nbsp(2001):2062-2065.

Themistocleous, Christiana. &quotDigital code-switching betweenCypriot and Standard Greek: Performance and identity play online.&quotInternational Journal of Bilingualism 19.3 (2015): 282-297.

Toribio,Almeida Jacqueline, and Barbara E. Bullock, eds.&nbspTheCambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching.Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. &quotShould Writers Use They Own English?.&quotIowa Journal of Cultural Studies 12.1 (2010): 110-117.

Zorn, Jeff. &quot“Students’ Right to Their Own Language”: ACounter-Argument.&quot Academic Questions 23.3 (2010):311-326.

Wheeler,Rebecca S., and Rachel Swords.&nbsp:Teaching Standard English in urban classrooms.National Council of Teachers, 2006.

Wei, Li.&quot“How can you tell?”: Towards a common sense explanation ofconversational code-switching.&quot&nbspJournalof Pragmatics&nbsp37.3(2005): 375-389.