An early, but nevertheless relatively sophisticated analysis of the factors involved in language switching, that takes account of many of the points made in the previous section is put forward by Herman (1961). He focuses on the different factors that affect what he refers to as language choice. Although Herman's study is not referred to very much in the language switching literature, it has some
similarities to the levels of analysis model that is discussed in chapters 7 to 9. It will therefore be described in some detail here.
The term language choice is used by Herman to refer to
language switching between conversations.
In talking about language choice, he says - "The position of a bilingual speaker required to choose one language rather than the other, in situations where either could serve as the medium of conversation may usefully be
analysed as that of a person in an
overlapping situation. He may be influenced by factors in the background situation or by personal needs or by the demands of the
immediate situation. The choice depends upon the relative potence of these situations."
could be influenced by these three different factors. For example, immigrants to Israel living on a kibbutz might use English to each other in their own rooms, but Hebrew in the kibbutz dining-room. This would be an example of the
influence of background factors, such as wanting to show solidarity with the new country, taking precedence. An
example of personal needs dominating, would be where someone uses their first, or preferred language, because it is the one in which they find it easiest to express a complex idea.
People who are not marginal in the society are more likely to use the language that best suits the demands of the
immediate situation, for example giving introductions in a workplace in a common first language. Those who are more marginal may select a particular language in order to demonstrate solidarity with a particular group. These
examples which Herman gives are based on hypothetical events rather than actual illustrations. While they sound
plausible, it is obviously useful to obtain confirmation of the framework using examples that have actually been
observed.
Such examples, using Herman's framework, are given by Hunt (1968) from the essays of Philippino students, all of whom knew at least three languages. Hunt's examples can be fitted reasonably well into Herman's scheme although he finds it difficult to separate immediate situation from the other two categories of personal need and background
situation. The difficulty of differentiating between the categories is probably the main problem with Herman's
"In my present home, however, I speak mainly Cebuano being married to one. But when
discussing serious topics like politics, science and religion my husband and I prefer to use English. We can express ourselves more effectively in English especially with technical matters. "
Hunt gives this as an example of a language choice dominated by the immediate situation, the immediate
situation being in this case that English is essential for the discussion of certain concepts. One could however argue that this is a good example of the importance of background factors. Perhaps the particular values of the community of which this respondent is a member include that of English being the appropriate language for certain types of
discussion. It is very unlikely to be the case that Cebuano does not have the vocabulary with which it is possible to discuss these topics but it may be that there are social norms which makes discussion of the topics in Cebuano very unlikely.
An alternative explanation of this particular example would be in terms of the respondent's own personal needs. Perhaps because of the type of education she has had she is unable to discuss certain topics in Cebuano as her
vocabulary may be deficient in these particular domains. A plausible explanation of this language choice can therefore be made using any of Herman's three categories, and this is equally true of many other language choices one can think of. This certainly suggests that this model is not really well enough specified for use as a tool in describing
language choices. However I am still left with the feeling that Herman has pinpointed certain very important ideas. It is not enough to merely look at the immediate situation (or domain, to use Fishman's terminology) when attempting to locate the cause of a language switch. Although the terms - personal needs, immediate situation and background factors - have not been developed, they indicate the range of levels of analysis needed to explain language switching.
The psychological nature of his discussion is also appealing. Motivation for any type of behaviour is complex and multi-faceted and conflicting needs can lead to
unexpected behaviours. Herman gives examples of this in the area of language switching. He also, despite his use of the term language choice which implies a conscious decision, appears to allow for motivations to be both conscious and unconscious. Because of this, Hunt's use of his model is inadequate as his data consists of explanations, perhaps even rationalisations, by respondents of their own
linguistic behaviour. There is an element of naivete in the way Hunt appears to accept at face value people's
explanations of their own behaviour. This naivete is not apparent in Herman's paper. Although there are some
differences, the model put forward, and discussed in
chapters 7 and 8, owes a great deal to Herman's ideas. What