252 CHAPTER 7
Peck, 1982). If this is the case, then code switching would be largely uncon-
scious. I would argue that such a conclusion is faulty.
Existing research shows that those who speak English as a second language
tend to code switch under two conditions: (a) when speaking with an audience
they know is bilingual, and (b) when they need a word in L2 that they don’t have
or can’t remember. The situation is slightly different for nonstandard-English
speakers. They generally do not code switch when speaking with others who
are bidialectal. Instead, they will use one dialect or the other, depending on the
social relationship that exists among the group and on the setting. The domi-
nant factor, however, is the social relationship: As it becomes more intimate,
there is a greater tendency to use the home dialect, even in those situations in
which other speakers do not share and have a hard time understanding that dia-
lect. As the bidialectal speaker shifts further along the continuum toward
nonstandard speech, the monodialectal participant may have to ask “What?”
several times as a reminder that he or she is not understanding some of the
nonstandard language. At such moments, the bidialectal speaker must make a
conscious decision to shift in the other direction along the continuum. When-
ever these social factors do not obtain, it is considered rude to use the non-
standard dialect.
The model of cognitive grammar described in the previous chapter allows us
to understand this behavior by positing that, among bidialectal speakers, both
the standard and the nonstandard forms coexist in their neural networks. This
seems commonsensical: If they didn’t, Standard English and nonstandard Eng-
lish speakers would not be able to understand one another, yet they generally
do. The case of negatives provides a useful example. For Standard English
speakers, the negative/positive pattern dominates, whereas for nonstandard
English speakers the negative/negative pattern dominates. On this basis, we
must conclude that use of the nondominating form is a conscious decision.
This analysis allows us to understand Castaneda and Ulanoff’s (2004)
observations. Recall that the elementary-school children in their study were
reluctant to use Chicano English, whereas the high schoolers used it to ex-
press “solidarity” and “resistance.” Recall also the discussion of moral be-
havior in chapter 6. The children in elementary school recognized that it
would be rude for them to use CE in the classroom, so they refrained. Teen-
agers, on the other hand, often are unconcerned about being rude. In both
cases, to use or not to use CE was a conscious decision. Does this mean that
teachers are witnessing a kind of perversity when students choose to use CE
or BEV in the classroom? Well, in some cases, yes. We must keep in mind
that the key to dialect shift is motivation.