Contact Linguistics. Chap

Exercise: Compare situations of stable diglossia such as that in German Switzerland with unstable situations like that in Greece, where diglossia has broken down and the L language has spread into public and “high” domains. What social, political and ideological factors favor the maintenance or loss of diglossia? [On Switzerland, see Keller (1982). On Greece, see Frangoudaki (1992) and Kazazis (1993). An extensive bibliography on diglossia can be found in Alan Hudson (1992)}


3.2. Micro-level analysis: Code switching and conversation.

Domain analysis has provided much insight into the general patterns of language choice in bilingual communities. The concept provides a link between the macro-level organization of society, with its "socio-cultural norms and expectations" and the micro-level organization of language use manifested in "individual behavior at the level of face-to-face verbal encounters” (Fishman 1972:441). On the one hand, it is clear that the social structure constrains language choice in certain ways. On the other, individuals can and do exploit the choices available to them to manipulate situations and redefine the relationships pertinent to a particular interaction. Research in social and linguistic anthropology has greatly enhanced our understanding of these individual choices.

Hymes (1962) presented a comprehensive framework for the investigation of language choice in speech communities. His "ethnography of speaking" distinguishes a range of components that are relevant to the analysis of the speech economy of a community. Some of these, such as 'situation' and 'participants' have to do with the social organization of the community. Others such as 'ends', 'act sequence', 'key', and 'norms of interpretation' have to do with the transactional nature of interactions, as negotiations aimed at achieving particular goals. In addition, they portray such interactions as ordered exchanges which rely for their success on shared understanding of socio-cultural norms and the meanings assigned to specific language choices.
The major impetus for investigation of code switching as socially meaningful linguistic behavior came from Gumperz' research on Norwegian communities in the 1960's, and particularly from the highly influential study by Blom & Gumperz (1972) of the town of Hemnesberget. They found that residents of the town employed two dialects: Ranamål (the vernacular), and Bokmål (the standard variety). The scenario they present is clearly reminiscent of diglossia, with B as High and R as L language. The residents of the community fall into 3 socio-economic strata. First there are locally born laborers and skilled workers with strong local network ties, including kinship. Then there is an intermediate group of wholesale/retail merchants and plant managers who have relatives within the group of artisans, and who must cultivate ties with customers of various backgrounds. Finally, there it a diversified group of service personnel, including clerks, business owners, school teachers, doctors and the like, who are often migrants, or have stronger ties outside the town. Interestingly, Blom & Gumperz found that language choice was not directly correlated with socio-economic divisions, but rather depended on network ties that often cut across those divisions.
Those linked primarily to local networks and values include manual workers and artisans, as well as lower-range white-collar workers. Merchants and plant managers have both local and non-local network ties, and hence divided loyalties to local versus external values. Finally, the retail owners, school teachers, doctors and other professionals identify more with the non-local middle-class value system of the pan-Norwegian elite. It is primarily the interactions between the members of the first two networks that involve code switching. This takes two forms. First, different situations are associated with different varieties - a pattern referred to as "situational" code switching. For instance, official business between a local resident and an employee in a government office is conducted in Bokmål, but if the two engage in an informal chat, they switch to Ranamål. In general, Bokmål is used in church services, school matters, interaction with strangers, and other formal contexts. Ranamål is used among locals at home, in the workplace, and in public meeting places. This situational switching involves changes in participants' rights and obligations, that is, their status and role relationships.
But Blom & Gumperz observed that speakers often switched codes on the same occasion, particularly when there were changes of topic. For instance, locals would greet government clerks and discuss family matters in vernacular, but switch to standard for the business transaction. But even within the latter, they used the vernacular for informal comments and asides. (Compare the Swiss German situation discussed earlier.) Blom & Gumperz termed this "metaphorical" switching. The distinction between 'situational' and 'metaphorical' switching triggered a great deal of research on the social motivations for code switching. The distinction itself has been challenged on the grounds that it isn't based on clear criteria. As Pride (1979) pointed out, 'metaphorical' switches involve the same re-definitions of status and role-relationships as 'situational' switches, hence the two are not distinguishable. But Breitborde (1983:14) argues that there is "both empirical and intuitive validity in distinguishing the two." He suggests that what is involved is the difference between "two statuses operating simultaneously in one situation, and two statuses each operating in its own situation." However, Breitborde does not distinguish status from role-relationship, which would add more weight to his position.
The Blom & Gumperz study was important for several reasons. It demonstrated that choice of a code is not just a mechanical product of a static domain, but that domains themselves can change as role-relationships do, and interlocutors assume different stances toward the subject matter of the transaction. The study was also innovative in its use of participant-observation techniques and social network analysis to investigate the code alternation in the community. Blom & Gumperz showed that, in order to understand the social meaning of code switching, we must ask "who the speakers are, and how the codes are used. The former requires that we comprehend the social identities and social relations obtaining among speakers; the latter, that we figure out how these social identities (which are linked to linguistic varieties) are brought to bear in social interaction" (Breitborde 1983:7).


3.2.1. Taxonomies of factors affecting code switching.

Micro-level approaches to code switching have also attempted to construct taxonomies of the functions of code-switches, to determine the various factors that trigger such switches within a conversation. Gumperz (1977) proposed three general motives for code-switching:

• Choice of H to add authoritativeness to an utterance.

• Choice of H to highlight the point of a narrative in L.
• Choice of H to add seriousness to commands directed at a child.

Since then, fuller taxonomies have been developed. Auer (1995:120) provides the following list of "conversational loci in which switching is particularly frequent".

• Reported speech.

• Change of participant constellation, particularly addressee selection.
• Parentheses or side-comments.

• 
  Reiteration, i.e., quasi-translations into the other language, for purposes of emphasis, clarification, attracting attention, etc.
  

• Change of activity type, also called 'mode shift' or 'role shift'.
• Topic shift.
• Puns, language play, shift of 'key'.
• Topicalization, topic/comment structure.

But such taxonomies are of limited use, since, in general, they fail to provide clear explanations for specific switches within the context of an interaction. In other words, as Auer explains, such listing does not bring us closer to a theory of code-alternation or tell us why code-alternation may have a conversational meaning or function. What is at stake here is a theoretical framework which can explain (and ultimately predict) patterns of code switching within a conversation.

3.3. Toward a theory of the social meaning of conversational code switching.

There have been two approaches to this problem - one focussing on the sequencing of utterances and the sequential environment of code-switches (Gumperz 1982; Auer 1995); the other focussing on code choices as "indexing rights-and obligations sets (RO sets) between participants in a given interaction type" (Myers-Scotton 1993a:84).

The former approach builds on Gumperz' (1982) idea of code switching as a "contextualization cue" similar to monolingual choices of prosodic, paralinguistic, syntactic and lexical features which signal a particular intent on the part of the speaker. In this approach, the meaning of a code-switch depends both on its sequential position in the discourse context itself, and on the broader situational and socio-cultural context which make up the background knowledge of the participants. The latter embraces the community norms for the type of interaction, and the values assigned to different language choices. The approach is therefore similar to those types of conversational analysis which attempt to explain how intended meanings are conveyed through implicatures signaled by the speaker, and inferences drawn by the listener. Hence this approach attempts to link the micro-level of conversational interaction to the macro-level societal setting in which it occurs, and without which it cannot be interpreted.
Myers-Scotton (1993a) takes a somewhat different approach to the social motivations for code switching. Her view is that speakers do not exercise linguistic choices solely because of their social identities or in response to situational factors, but rather use such choices to convey "intentional meaning of a socio-pragmatic nature" (1993a:57). This approach stresses the role of the speaker as creative actor who uses language choice to negotiate changes in the nature of the situation and the social relationships among participants. Myers-Scotton's "markedness" model is thus a model of speakers' socio-psychological motivations for code switching (1993a:75). It draws on concepts from a variety of disciplines, including Sociology of Language (domains), Social Anthropology (transactions, negotiations), Linguistic Anthropology (communicative competence) and Pragmatics (implicatures and intentional meaning). Basically, the model presents code choices as "indexing" (pointing to) rights-and-obligations sets (RO sets) between the participants in a particular interaction. An RO set "is an abstraction which is based on situational factors, and represents the attitudes and expectations of participants toward each other" (1993a:85). The model interprets code choices as negotiations of RO sets.
The idea of "markedness" relates to the community norms which apply to interaction types and which individuals may either obey or violate to achieve conversational goals. "Unmarked" choices of code are those which conform to community norms and participants' expectations. Examples would include instances of so-called "situational" switching where different RO sets are associated with different code choices. There are also instances of switching within the same conversation which signals simultaneous adherence to two positively valued social identities (for instance the types of switching practised among educated bilinguals in African cities like Nairobi and Dakar). The latter type of code switching is typically a strategy of neutrality that picks the middle ground between two identities and their related RO sets. "Marked" code switching on the other hand, represents a departure from the normal, expected choice, and therefore has "shock value", signaling some ulterior intent on the speaker's part. According to Myers-Scotton, the general effect of marked code switching is "to negotiate a change in the expected social distance holding between participants, either increasing or decreasing it" (1993a:132). Marked code switches may be used to convey anger or authority, to exclude outsiders from in-group interaction, to "flag" or emphasize messages via repitition, and so on. They may also be used to achieve more familiarity and solidarity with an addressee in a situation which normally calls for a different code choice. Though Myers-Scotton focusses on individual choices and motivations, her model requires a thorough understanding of macro-level societal norms and evaluations to interpret the transactional meaning of code switches. As she notes, such interpretation depends on "the framework of markedness which is provided by societal norms" (1993a:109). Hence both macro- and micro-level factors are included in her model.
Most of the empirical frameworks proposed for the study of code switching attempt this kind of integration. None would claim to have achieved predictive power, though several inductive generalizations have emerged about why speakers switch on specific occasions in certain socio-cultural contexts.


3.4. Code switching and Communication Accommodation Theory.

Another important contribution to our understanding of the social meaning of code switching comes from Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), developed by Howard Giles and his associates. A major objective of CAT is to explain the cognitive and affective factors that influence individuals to change their speech (and other forms of communication) in ways that either converge with or diverge from that of their interlocutors. Convergence (convergent Accommodation) can be described as a strategy by which interlocutors accommodate to each other's speech in a variety of ways - by adjusting pronunciation and other linguistic features, or even paralinguistic features such as speech rate, pauses and length of utterances. Divergence (divergent Accommodation) refers to the ways in which speakers emphasize linguistic differences between themselves and others. The central idea behind CAT is that speakers may be motivated to adjust their speaking styles in order to evoke the listener's social approval, to increase communicative efficiency, and to maintain a positive social identity.

CAT is based on social psychological processes such as similarity attraction, social exchange, causal attribution and inter-group distinctiveness. Speech convergence is explained primarily in terms of the first three processes, while divergence is explained in relation to inter-group processes. For instance, in convergent Accommodation, a speaker minimizes the linguistic differences between herself and her interlocutor with a view to increasing social attraction. The notion of social exchange refers to the speaker's assessment of the costs and rewards of accommodating. The process of causal attribution has to do with the listener's interpretation of the speaker's intention in adapting his style. Such accommodation is valued more positively if it is attributed to the speaker's desire to reduce social distance.
Finally, the notion of inter-group distinctiveness comes into play when a speaker employs distinctive linguistic markers of his own group to emphasize his own group membership and dissociate himself from his interlocutor. Divergent accommodation is therefore a strategy for maintaining social and psychological distance. Analysis of divergence has benefited from Tajfel & Turner's (1979) social identity of inter-group relations and social change. According to this theory, the more individuals define encounters in inter-group terms and wish to preserve a positive in-group identity, the more likely they are to diverge linguistically. The extent of the divergence depends on factors such as the individual's perception of the social forces operating in favor of their own group, and their group's status vis a vis other groups (Giles et al. 1987:29). These factors are closely linked to the concept of ethnolinguistic vitality - a construct introduced by Giles, Bourhis & Taylor (1977). The concept refers to the degree of autonomy and distinctiveness a group enjoys by virtue of factors such as demography (size, distribution, natural increase, etc.); status (economic and political power, prestige, etc.); and institutional support (degree of support in societal institutions such as the mass media, education, etc.). The assumption is that the higher the degree of ethnolinguistic vitality, the more likely it is that the group will preserve its distinctiveness and its own language. Individuals' perceptions of the ethnolinguistic vitality of their group influence the way they behave in inter-ethnic encounters. Hence the concept offers ways of linking micro-level individual behavior to the macro-level societal structures which define inter-ethnic group relations. This and other additions to the theory have helped CAT evolve from a strictly socio-psychological model of speech accommodation to an interdisciplinary framework for describing and explaining language choices in inter-ethnic interpersonal interactions. The basic propositions of CAT were first summarized by Street & Giles (1982:213-14)) as follows:

(1) Speakers will attempt to converge linguistically towards the speech patterns believed to be characteristic of their interlocutors when (a) they desire their social approval and the perceived costs of so acting are lower than the rewards anticipated; and/or (b) they desire a high level of communicational efficiency and (c) social norms and/or linguistic competence are not perceived to dictate alternative speech strategies.

(2) The degree of linguistic divergence will be a function of (a) the extent of the speakers' repertoires, and (b) factors (individual differences and situation) that may increase the need for social approval and/or communicational efficiency.

(3) Speech convergence will be positively evaluated by recipients when the resultant behavior is (a) perceived as such psychologically, (b) perceived to be at an optimal sociolinguistic distance from them, and (c) attributed internally with positive intent.

(4) People will attempt to maintain their speech patterns or even diverge linguistically from those believed characteristic of their recipients when they (a) define the encounter in inter-group terms and desire a positive ingroup identity, or (b) wish to dissociate personally from another in an interindividual encounter, or (c) wish to bring another's speech behaviors to a personally acceptable level.

(5) The magnitude of such divergence will be a function of (a) the extent of speakers' repertoires, and (b) individual differences and contextual factors increasing the salience of the cognitive or affective functions in proposition 4.

(6) Speech maintenance and divergence will be negatively evaluated by recipients when the acts are perceived as psychologically diverging, but favorably reacted to by observers of the encounter who define the interaction in inter-group terms and who share a common, positively valued group membership with the speaker.

These propositions have been revised and reformulated in more detail by Giles et al. (1987), to take account of the findings of recent research.

3.4.1. Code switching as accommodation.

Much of the earlier work in the CAT framework consisted of experimental laboratory studies, but there has been increasing attention to observation of language behavior in natural settings (for an overview, see Giles et al. 1991). Some of the latter studies are highly relevant to understanding the social motivations for code switching. For instance, Coupland (1984) analyzed how a travel agent converged phonologically to clients of different educational and socio-economic backgrounds. Berg (1985) studied code switching in Taiwan by examining over 8,000 interactions in markets, shops, banks and department stores. In most cases, it was found that interlocutors accommodated mutually to each other's code choice, which varied according to the setting. For instance, customers in banks would converge upwardly to the clerks, who converged downwardly to them. In the marketplace, however, customers converged downwardly to salespersons who in turn converged upwardly to them. These patterns of convergence seem typical of interactions like these, where the customer's approval is sought. Other kinds of interaction are characterized by different patterns of Accommodation.

Studies like these support the proposition that the greater a speaker's need to achieve social approval, social integration or some instrumental goal, the greater the degree of convergence will be. Research of this kind can therefore shed light on patterns of code switching as a form of accommodative behavior in situations of actual or potential language shift, as well as in situations of stable bilingualism where code switching is the 'unmarked' choice. As Giles et al. (1991:20) point out,
"Much of the literature on long and mid-term language and dialect acculturation can also be interpreted in convergence terms, whereby immigrants [and other linguistic minorities - DW] seek the economic advantage and social rewards (though there are clearly also costs) that linguistic assimilation sometimes brings."
Language divergence has also been investigated from a CAT perspective in controlled experiments and in natural settings. An example of the former is Bourhis et al.'s (1979) study of how different groups of trilingual Flemish students (Flemish-French-English) reacted when recorded in 'neutral' as distinct from 'ethnically-threatening' encounters with a French (Walloon) out-group speaker. Neutral encounters between Flemish and French speakers are often conducted in English. But when the out-group speaker posed ethnically threatening questions in English to the listeners, they initially responded in English, but half of them later switched to their in-group language, Flemish. In a follow-up study, when the Walloon speaker posed his threatening question in French, almost all listeners switched to Flemish. Studies like this demonstrate how, in such inter-group encounters, speech maintenance or divergence are (often deliberate) acts of maintaining group identity (Bourhis 1979).
Speech communities in which different ethnolinguistic groups are in conflict or wish to preserve their own distinctiveness are likely to be characterized by language divergence. This typically results in non-reciprocal patterns of code switching which disfavor the kinds of language mixture that Accommodation produces in other situations. A well-documented example of this is the situation in Quebec, Canada, as described by Heller (1985; 1995). Here, inter-ethnic interactions typically involve a process of language negotiation in which individuals attempt to choose between English and French as the language of conversation. The patterns of code switching that accompany such exchanges shed light on "how language use is bound up in the creation, maintenance or change in relations in power" (Heller 1995:164). To understand this, one must first comprehend how power relationships between Anglophones and Francophones in Quebec have changed over the years. Until the 1960's, Anglophones were dominant in the political and economic spheres of activity, and this dominance was reflected in the imposition of English as the language of public and inter-ethnic private communication (op. cit. 167). After World War II, however, Francophones became more and more upwardly mobile, penetrating the arenas of politics, higher education and business enterprises. As a result, French became increasingly favored as the medium of interaction in these settings. A key factor in this development was the passing of Bill 101 by the government of Quebec in 1977. This bill declared French to be the official language of the province and required that it be used in various public domains, including government, education and occupational spheres such as pharmacy, nursing, engineering, etc. This law in effect gave French speakers access to all areas of social and economic activity in the province, and made French the language of the work sphere. As a result, French and English came to compete directly in various domains, especially in public service encounters and in the workplace (Heller 1985:79).
This redefinition of the power relationships between the groups and their language led inevitably to a redefinition of the norms of language use and evaluation that had characterized the older social order. Under the new dispensation, choice of one or the other language can signal a variety of meanings and intentions (presentations of self) on the speaker's part. Exclusive use of French may signal commitment to French nationalist identity, while exclusive use of English may indicate resistance to that nationalism (ibid.). Alternatively, such exclusive choices may simply be due to monolingualism. Hence inter-ethnic interactions can proceed only when interlocutors have determined each other's ethnic affiliation, language ability and language preference, and particularly the values they associate with different language choices.
Speakers react to such choices in different ways. In some cases, they may opt for deliberate divergence, emphasizing group distinctiveness in the encounter. Heller (1985:78-79) presents the following example of a conversation at a government bureau between an Anglophone man who has come to take a French proficiency test, and a bilingual receptionist:

Man: Could you tell me where the French test is?

Receptionist (in French) Pardon?

Man: Could you tell me where the French test is?

Receptionist: En français? (In French?)

Man: I have the right to be addressed in English by the government of Quebec.

Receptionist (to 3rd person) Qu'est-ce qu'il dit? (What's he saying?)

In other cases, speakers continually switch languages until some consensus on one or the other is reached, as in the following example from Heller (1985:81) - a telephone conversation between a patient and a clerk at a hospital.

Clerk: Central Booking, may I help you?

Patient: Oui, allô?
Clerk: Bureau de rendez-vous, est-ce que je peux vous aider?
("Appointments desk? Can I help you?")
Patient: (French) (The patient begins to try to make an appointment)
Clerk: (French)
Patient: (English)
Clerk: (English)
Patient: (French)
Clerk: (French)
Patient: Êtes-vous français ou anglaise? ("Are you French or English?")
Clerk: N'importe j'suis ni l'une ni l'autre.
("It doesn't matter, I'm neither one nor the other")
Patient: Mais... ("But...")
Clerk: Ç ne fait rien. ("It doesn't matter")
Patient: (French)

(The conversation continues in French)

Code switching in such cases becomes a "strategy of neutrality" by which speakers avoid committing themselves to a distinct ethnic identity, choosing a middle path instead (Myers-Scotton 1993a:147). The situation in Quebec, then, represents one way in which code alternation is linked to social processes and interactions between groups, and becomes a means of expressing relationships of power or solidarity. In other situations, the forces that promote divergence may explain why certain minority groups resist acquiring a host language with complete native proficiency (Giles et al. 1991:31), settling instead for an ethnolect that reflects their separate status. This may also partly explain the emergence and maintenance of local or "indigenized" varieties of European languages in ex-colonial settings (see for example the "New Englishes" of Africa, South-east Asia, the Caribbean etc.) It is clear that CAT offers a rich theoretical framework within which to investigate not just code switching, but other types of convergent or divergent linguistic behaviors. With respect to code switching in particular, it offers a way of explaining how and why code selection "can be the vehicle of quite opposite tendencies, from accommodation to divergence, and from language maintenance to language shift" (Gardner-Chloros 1995:80).

Summary:

This chapter examined various types of bilingual language mixture to which the label “code switching” has been applied. First we considered how best to define this term. Code switching manifests itself in various ways, from alternation between utterances in different languages to various kinds of intra-sentential and intra-clause mixture.

There is a tendency to restrict the definition of code switching only to those kinds of language mixture practised by skilled bilinguals. Hence those kinds of mixing that characterize the interlanguage of learners acquiring a second language tend to be treated as distinct phenomena. In addition, not all researchers regard the type of intra-sentential mixture that involves momentary switches of content morphemes as “true” code switching. Some see it as a kind of lexical borrowing. It is clear that code switching is a continuum of language behaviors, and there are no sharp boundaries between it and other kinds of language mixture.
The other central focus of the chapter was on the social meanings and motivations of code switching. This kind of language performance is a reflection of the way speakers perceive their social identities and relationships to one another, in the broader context of their community’s social structure. Choices of code are typically associated with different situations or sociolinguistic domains. A perhaps extreme example of this are communities characterized by diglossia, a situation in which different code choices are employed in complementary distribution in separate domains. Code switching can often be an act of identity (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller 1985) by which speakers locate themselves in social space and in relation to their interlocutors. In other cases, it may be a communicative strategy by which they attempt to achieve transactional goals. In these respects, it is similar to other kinds of stylistic variation (for instance, in monolingual communities) which are conditioned by social norms of interaction.
Choices of code are also regulated by factors such as language attitudes that reflect individuals’ and groups’ perception of one another. Such attitudes can lead them to accommodate to one another via code switching or other kinds of convergence, or to diverge by emphasizing linguistic differences and avoiding code switching or other accommodative behavior. Degrees and types of code switching are also constrained by other social factors, such as the extent of contact between (members of) the groups, and the degrees of bilingual competence that individuals display.
However, in the final analysis, it is the interplay between social and structural factors that determines the actual types of code switching practised by individuals and groups. As Myers-Scotton (1993c:476) points out, structural factors determine permissible forms of code switching, while social factors regulate the choices among the various types permitted. The role that structural factors play is the subject of the following chapter.
An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Donald Winford.


Chapter 5. Code switching: Linguistic Aspects.


1. Introduction.

There have been many attempts to describe the linguistic structure of code-switched utterances and identify the linguistic principles and constraints that govern their production. Studies of this type focus primarily on intra-sentential switching, rather than inter-sentential alternations, since the latter simply involve utterances that follow the grammar of one or the other language. Intra-sentential code switching, on the other hand, produces various kinds of hybrid structures that require explanation. The goal of the models proposed for this kind of code switching is to predict which utterances containing code switching are well-formed or not, and to explain why certain kinds of mixture are either permitted or blocked. In short, the goal is to determine the nature of the grammar underlying bilingual mixture. As Poplack & Meechan (1995:199) put it,

Do speakers operate with a single base grammar which is on occasion overlaid with lexical items from another language, or are different grammars activated at different times? If the latter is the case, what structural principles govern the juxtaposition?

2. Structural constraints on code switching.

As we have seen, researchers who focus their attention specifically on the structural aspects of code switching have defined the phenomenon in different ways, depending on their own theoretical perspective. These differences in approach have implications for how the linguistic constraints on code switching are handled by different scholars.

2.1. Equivalence-based constraints.

Poplack and her associates draw a distinction between single word switches and those involving multi-word fragments, and claim that the distinction is crucial to the task of constructing a theory of constraints on code switching (Poplack & Meechan 1995:224). They treat single word switches as borrowings that are subject to different constraints from those that apply to multi-word switches. For them, the chief difference lies in the fact that "borrowing involves the grammatical structure of one language only, with the other playing a solely etymological role (Poplack & Meechan 1995:208). Borrowed items are structurally integrated into the morpho-syntactic frame of the recipient language. Code switching on the other hand, involves two grammars interacting with each other. The structural difference between the two phenomena is illustrated in the following examples of Wolof/French codeswitching from Poplack & Meechan (1995:217), where the speaker first switches (1) and then borrows (2) the French noun égalité.

(1) sunu idées yu ñu am rek, xam nga ay égalité, fraternité,

POSS ideas that we have ADV, know you IND