Codeswitching in Arabic reality food competition shows through the lens of partial subtitling: A case study of the MENA adaptation of top chef

Abstract

Localized reality television competitions centering on food merge language and food to express the emotional depth that stems from identity. While many have examined the relationship between food and identity and language and identity separately, few have combined the two. Thus, this paper aims to study the cases of codeswitching (CS) in Arabic food competitions. The research is qualitative and quantitative in nature. Selected episodes of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) version of the reality series Top Chef were watched, and the instances of codeswitching were transcribed alongside the partial Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) subtitles that translate them. The use of English was examined and classified based on context, speaker, and translation strategy to better understand its use. The code switches were categorized into food-related and non-food-related. Food-related examples include universal food items, food textures and flavors, culture-specific food items, desserts, food preparation and presentation, courses, techniques, and tools. In contrast, non-food-related examples included general statements and sentences which typically had Arabic equivalents. The results show that subtitlers use a variety of strategies to domesticate food-related items, including direct translation, explicitation, transliteration, addition, and omission. The study found that understanding the use of CS aids in the choice of the most suitable translation technique, but this was not seen in the actual practice. The results also indicate that the frequency of codeswitching is influenced by the competitor’s gender and geographical area. The study recommends that further studies be conducted on language choice and codeswitching in other contexts.

Keywords:

• code switching
• food
• top chef
• subtitling
• localization

1. Introduction

Food and language are both vessels for personal and cultural identities. The two can symbolize community, class, social group, status, and much more (Gerhardt, 2013). Thus, language use and codeswitching have an intrinsic relation with identity and are affected by different aspects of identity, such as gender and location (Hall & Nilep, 2015). Language and food are now influenced by globalization, and historically, they were affected by colonization, which relates them to identity (Grey & Newman, 2018). Furthermore, these are powerful tools for human communication and connection and, to some extent, have become a mode of artistic expression (Stajcic, 2013). Artistic expression often devolves into spectacle and entertainment, and food is no exception. Though the primary senses food evokes are taste and smell, two senses that cannot be carried over to media outlets sharing food-related content on media have become global sensations. Whether it be social media or television, there is a dedication to a loyal following for food pictures and videos (Rousseau, 2012). Food shows have received such positive reactions that many have global audiences, with shows being imported and translated for foreign audiences. Taken to the next step, many shows earned localized remakes, with reality competition shows at the forefront of this phenomenon.

Since the audience do not taste what they see, reality shows must compensate for this loss. Consequently, the programs must exaggerate the other senses of sight and hearing. Still, this is not enough, so here is where the employment of language comes in. The contestants gracefully describe their creations to both judges and audiences alike. Upon tasting the food, the judges then give a detailed critique of what they have before them. These remarks do more than explain their judgment, but in this way, the viewer tastes the food vicariously through the judges. Food reality TV, like most reality television, relies on creating an emotional response from its viewers, so language is used not only to describe the flavors, textures, and cooking techniques of the food but also the special place the dish holds in the contestant’s heart (Brost, 2000). The contestant must pour their soul and identity into what they prepare in order to win the viewers. These two reasons highlight the importance of language in food television and how language and food intertwine with identity. This means that language choice and codeswitching (CS) become an area of interest when used in these contexts.

Codeswitching is the result of language culture and the intersection of cultures and languages and their influences on each other. Like borrowing, CS mixes the use of multiple languages or language variants (Gardner‐Chloros, 2020). It is often seen as a social act that aims to achieve a certain goal or reflect a certain image and is thus a result of linguistic, personal, and social factors.

This paper aims to examine how CS is employed by English-Arabic speakers in addition to how CS is treated and translated on television. The MENA version of the series Top Chef is thus investigated as the nature of the show and its subtitles allow for the examination of codeswitching and its translation. Since the series is a reality cooking show, CS appears in its spontaneous form in a way that is related both to identity and technicality. The partial subtitles highlight the instances of codeswitching and their potential inaccessibility to parts of the audience.

Thus, this paper examines how CS and partial subtitling are employed in relation to language clarity, understandability, and accessibility, in addition to how food and language affect and are affected by identity, as little attention has been given to the relation between translation, CS, and identity in a natural dialogue that may contain jargon.

The current study attempts to answer the following questions:

• What kind of items are code-switched, and what subtitling strategies are used?

• To what extent does gender affect the frequency of codeswitching?

• To what extent does the competitor’s geographical area affect the amount of codeswitching?

2. Literature review

2.1. Food shows and media

Holmes and Jermyn (2004) characterized reality television as a vast genre with programs that emulate and simulate reality and are craftily edited and packaged. The genre expanded with time to star ordinary people, and though the genre is not considered a high form of art or television, it is widely popular. Due to their high popularity and simple concepts, from a marketing perspective, they are a tried and tested product that can be easily replicated and recreated globally, so there are many localized versions of various shows. Similarly, Skeggs and Wood (2012) described reality television as a popular and easily replicated genre that capitalizes on human emotion to entertain and connect with audiences. This implies that viewer reactions can be affected by their identities. Furthermore, Barton (2009) linked gratification with viewing reality television, with dimensions specific to watching competition-based shows.

Hejase (2015) described reality shows as inauthentic displays crafted and manufactured to elicit the desired emotional reaction from audiences. These fabricated scenarios, however, could still have an influence in shaping societies and audiences’ perceptions of their identity, especially if they are teenagers. Therefore, culture must be taken into consideration when producing remakes, favoring localization over globalization. Ayish (2011) also discussed the role of globalization and localization in the promotion of ethical as well as cultural and traditional social values but found that audience perceptions indicate there is not much divergence in localized vs. globalized content. Instead, the two portray foreign and domestic values in unison. Among the areas examined was decency, under which language use falls, highlighting the difference between what is acceptable or not in the Arab world compared to the west.

Among the various types of reality shows, food programs are an increasingly popular genre. Adema (2000) suggested this is due to these shows enabling viewers to vicariously prepare and consume food through the screen without social expectations or guilt. Ketchum (2005) investigated food media, specifically the American “Food Network,” and found that these reality programs create an egalitarian fantasy through which the viewer vicariously joins the cooking community. These shows cater to consumerism under the guise of connecting with food and making it accessible to the everyday person. Additionally, to provide heightened pleasure to the audience, any negativity is pushed to the sidelines, and effects on health and the environment are concealed from sight.

This paper examines the reflection of identity in reality television as it is both spontaneous and constructed. This is done mainly through the study of language use in this genre, specifically in its relation to food.

2.2. Food, language, and identity

MacClancy (2004) suggested that analyzing identity is a complex matter, and as such, there is much to be taken into consideration when linking food to identity, such as a context that is deeper than location and past but even, for example, to the reason why certain recipes were created and preserved. Parasecoli (2014) noted the bond between food and cultural identity as shown by migrants connecting to their roots and culture through food and its traditions.

Furthermore, Cooks (2009) argued that food can be used to show or gain social position and can even be used as a tool for resistance. Happel (2012) describes food as a social practice indicative of social status and examines the role of food and food references in postcolonial contexts in the creation of practical identities, prototypes, and stereotypes. In other words, food was used to reflect identities and separate them into in-group members and outgroup members.

There are a plethora of words and terms that are used to describe food. Still, according to Daniel and Roudot (2007), this abundance of possibilities is actually detrimental to clear food discussions and descriptions. Confusion can be caused by polysemy, overlapping descriptors, and objective intensity levels, in addition to issues in translation due to cultural, historical, and linguistic gaps compared to English terminology. Drake and Civille (2003) discussed the importance of creating a set lexicon to describe and refer to flavors and outlined the effort needed to do so and its different methods. To understand food and flavor descriptors, a frame of reference is required, and due to differences in the availability of food types, these descriptors can never be universal.

Jurafsky (2014) claimed that the language used to describe food could help us understand the cultures associated with food, from its origins to its globalization and interconnectedness among cultures and civilizations in the modern day and distant past.

Language and food are both seen as aspects of identity; thus, this paper examines the connections between the three.

2.3. Codeswitching

Codeswitching is “the juxtaposition of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems within the same exchange” (Gumperz, 1977, p. 1). Put simply, it is the linguistic feature of speaking two or more languages simultaneously. However, codeswitching has more than just linguistic aspects to consider, as it is also internally linked to social and psychological attributes. Muysken (1997) described three methods of codeswitching, alternation, which is the alternative turns or switches between two languages, insertion, where a phrase from the foreign language is embedded into a larger structure in the first; and congruent lexicalization, in which both languages are divided and used equally without one dominating the other. Woolard (2005) described conversational codeswitching as a form of language mixing between different languages or language variants, which can be examined through grammatical features or through social meanings. For instance, Anchimbe (2015) stated that although codeswitching is often linked to second language acquisition, it can be intentionally employed to perform an act, as the two languages could have different illocutions and social implications. Cheng (2003) cited multiple reasons for codeswitching, including linguistic gaps and shortcomings, the speakers’ (in)ability to convey their meaning with ease, identity and group expression or exclusion, and a desire to express a certain stance or point. Myers‐Scotton (1992) described codeswitching as similar to borrowing but argued the two were not identical, highlighting the psycho/sociolinguistic nature of codeswitching. Deuchar (2020) suggested that codeswitching and borrowing are easily discerned in longer remarks but can also be distinguished through the morphological and syntactic features of the loan utterances as well as their integration or establishment in the language.

Aside from its linguistic properties, Heller (1995) argued that codeswitching and language choice were political strategies. Auer (1984) described codeswitching as a social activity related to identity, status, and group belonging. Auer (1984)also discussed the role of codeswitching in creating an “us-code” and “they-code” and has linguistic and extralinguistic features and causes but argued that codeswitching is situational and is not necessarily strategical in every instance of its use.

Views on codeswitching range from positive to negative. Some consider that codeswitching is a valuable skill that should be developed, as suggested by Wheeler (2008), who advocated for teachers to instruct students on how to develop their language skills and encouraged codeswitching to achieve better results. Alomoush (2021) also had a positive attitude towards codeswitching and found using codeswitching in English in Arabic advertisements and media a sign of creativity. On the other hand, Georges and Farghal (2013) argued such practices are a form of elitism that alienates specific demographics. Nashef (2013) used the Arab world’s history of colonialism to explain the use of non-Arabic languages in the region. To begin, during the time of the Ottoman Empire, the attempts to replace Arabic with Turkish portrayed the language as inferior and a source of shame. Later, French and English became the language of the elite upper class, as only educated people could speak these colonial languages. Because of the media’s influence, English and French are more commonly spoken alongside colloquial Arabic.

2.4. Empirical studies

Abdullah and Buriro (2011) examined audience reception of codeswitching in talk shows and found that views are not unanimous. While some believed it best that the shows stick to one language or that CS was only used to appear educated, others believed that multilingual speech added to the quality of the shows. Codeswitching was also believed to be used for clarification, especially if the vocabulary of the main language lacked the desired meanings.

Si (2011) examined codeswitching in the film as a tool to reflect changes in CS practices and found an increase in more complex alternation over word insertions which matched the language trends of youth.

Abu-Melhim (2012) examined codeswitching by hosts on Arabic television and found that codeswitching is affected by age (younger generations are more likely to code-switch), gender (female over male), and social class, in addition to the topic of discussion. Furthermore, linguistic differences such as lack of lexicon and linguistic competency were cited as reasons for codeswitching.

Yusuf (2012) examined CS in the context of Kanywood and found it was used to reflect social relations as well as status. Moreover, it was used to express emotion or reflect group status. Additionally, it was affected by age, social situation, and character situation.

John and Dumanig (2013) found that examples of CS from Malaysian into Chinese were mostly likely terms related to food and culture and also found that food can be a tool in the creation of a cultural identity based on shared experiences.

Monti (2014) examined how film dubbing deals with CS and found that the translation techniques were affected by the relevance of CS. However, the translation and non-translation techniques resulted in some loss in the instances where CS was not reflected properly.

Aboelnabial (2019) found that CS was employed in Egyptian talk shows for a number of purposes, including the use of jargon, cliches, and intertextuality, among others. CS was also affected by social factors such as class, education, age, and gender.

Hapsari (2020) studied the use of CS in the Indonesian localized version of the cooking competition show Master Chef. The study found that the CS included inter and intra-sentential CS, as well as situational and metaphorical CS. The CS was employed to express solidarity, identity, emphasis, authority, and feeling. It was also used for quoting and discussing topics.

Mainake (2021) found that codeswitching was likely to be found in Indonesian advertisements, particularly those featuring food as English was used as inter-sentential and intra-sentential codeswitching.

Swandani et al. (2022) analyzed the use of CS and its translation in film and found that different translation techniques were used to deal with CS incidents, but inaccuracies were still present.

Situmorang and Natheni (2023) found that there are three types of codeswitching in talk shows which are inter-sentential, intra-sentential, and tag switching. Furthermore, CS was said to be used for the following reasons: the influence of the particular topic, quoting, expressing empathy, interjection, clarification, and expressing group solidarity.

Upon examining Cantonese talk shows, Lee and Zhu (2023) described CS as a choice made by the speaker in which attitudes such as impoliteness may be deliberately expressed.

Codeswitching is a commonly examined phenomenon, especially in the area of audiovisual media; however, as content and context both affect codeswitching, it is relevant to investigate its use in different genres. Therefore, this paper examines codeswitching in the specialized area of food and cooking and studies how it is employed and perceived through the Lens of translation and partial subtitling. Thus, this study fills a gap by examining codeswitching in the context of food and reality television and investigating CS as a language phenomenon related to translation and audience culture, an area of speaker-receiver relationships that also affect CS.

3. Methodology

The study consists of two sections, a qualitative section that analyzes the use of CS and how it is translated and a quantitative section that measures the effects of gender and geographical location on CS. To achieve this, data selection took place between February 1^st to the 15^th, where select episodes of the MENA version of the reality series Top Chef, which air on the MBC channels and are typically sixty minutes long, are watched, and the instances of codeswitching are transcribed alongside the partial MSA subtitles that translate them. Cases of codeswitching are determined based on the provision of subtitles. In addition, the use of English is examined and classified based on context, speaker, and translation strategy to better understand its use. Statistics on gender and geographical location are based on examples extracted from the second episode of seasons 1–6.

3.1. Why top Chef?

Top Chef is a localization of an American show which inevitably results in a foreign influence that would not be present in an original show. A cooking competition show would also have more technical terms than a show that teaches the average viewer how to cook. This is because, in a competition, skill, and knowledge are shown off to achieve status as the contestants aim to impress the judges and win against their opponents, while cooking shows aim to make food and cooking seem accessible. In addition, there is an intrinsic elitism in culinary cuisine.

Furthermore, the judge, Chef Bobby, is a multilinguist who lives in America. And along with him, many contestants code-switch from Arabic to English and, in some cases, French. Additionally, the show provides partial subtitles for the instances of codeswitching. Having partial subtitles instead of fully subtitling the series puts emphasis on codeswitching.

3.2. Corpus of the study

The corpus of the study consists of six Episodes from seven seasons of the MENA version of the reality series Top Chef. The second episode of each season was selected since they are early enough in the season to ensure that the subtitles cater to a general audience and not a more knowledgeable fanbase without being introductory episodes. Furthermore, the second episode of season 2 was not included as it featured a non-Arabic speaking guest judge, which affected the degree and reasoning of codeswitching as well as the use of English outside of the codeswitching context. The motivation for varying the seasons is to avoid using frequent code-switched items.

3.3. Partial subtitling

Subtitles are often classified into interlingual subtitles that translate from one language into another (Aldualimi & Almahasees, 2022; Haider et al., 2023; Saed et al., 2023), and intralingual subtitles that deal with one language and sometimes its variants (Al-Abbas & Haider, 2021; Al-Abbas et al., 2022; Haider & Hussein, 2022). Subtitles are often employed to bridge the gap between the unfamiliar source text language or dialect and the target audience. Partial subtitling is mostly used in multilingual media and is linked with codeswitching since the subtitled material switches between a language and dialect known to the audience and a foreign one. Sterk (2022) stated partial subtitling can be an exclusionary or inclusionary act whether they are provided for an insider or outsider audience. Vandekerckhove et al. (2009) found that partial subtitling was used as a form of interlingual subtitling. It was used for regiolects and varied depending on speaker and genre as it was more employed in nonfiction.

4. Data and analysis

4.1. Thematic categorization of code-switched items

The speakers on the show spoke mostly in their native tongues and dialects, i.e., colloquial Arabic variants but switched to English in specific utterances. Some of these utterances involved food, while others did not. The food-related codeswitching included examples of generic food names, foreign food items, and foods present but not common in the Arab world. Aside from examples and names of food, some terms were technical and related to the flavors, textures, and preparation and presentation of food. Finally, there were utterances of generic terms and a few full sentences in English that were not directly connected to food.

4.1.1. Universal food items

Food can be specific to a culture and its traditions, but many foods and types are universal, especially in today’s globalized age. Although these foods are known and available globally, their popularity in different areas varies. Table 1 shows the use of codeswitching for common foods, and some are rarely used in Arab cuisine.

Table 1. Categories of universal food items

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Universal Food Items	1	Cheese	جبنة
	2	Meat	اللحم
	3	Ginger	زنجبيل
	4	Sandwich	شطيرة
	5	Cake	كعكة
	6	Cream	قشدة
	7	cherry tomato	الطماطم الكرزية
	8	Cranberry	توت بري
	9	purée البروكلي	هريس القرنبيط الأخضر
	10	Leeks	كراث
	11	Bacon	لحم مقدد
	12	beef bacon	اللحم المقدد
	13	raspberry	التوت البري
	14	sauce cranberries مع caramel	توت العليق بالكراميل

The subtitles in the examples above use direct translation. Examples 1–3 are basic everyday food categories that have colloquial names similar to their MSA names. Codeswitching is not justified here because familiar one-to-one lexical correspondence exists between the two languages. By contrast, subtitling is not justified for items 4–6 because they represent internationalism. They are more familiar to an Arab audience than their MSA counterparts. The subtitling here, therefore, complicates rather than facilitates communication. For example, the food item “sandwich” is far more familiar than its loan-translation shaTiira, which is rarely used in Arabic. Consequently, codeswitching is not justified in examples 1–3 due to the presence of basic lexical correspondence between the two languages and could only be related to prestige rather than actual need as these terms are used on a daily basis by the typical Arabic speaker. Additionally, subtitling is superfluous in examples 4–6 because the items in question are well-established loans in Arabic.

By contrast, examples 7–10 are food items that are less common in Arab cuisine; therefore, their names are not used often. Example 7 uses an MSA calque, which is mostly incomprehensible as a verbal sign apart from the image. This is because it is unnatural and not found in the language of native Arabic speakers. The subtitler could have employed explicitation by offering something like طماطم مصغرة, which would be congruent with the image. In example 8, although the term “wild berry” is the official term for cranberries in Arabic, it is still a vague one, especially for those who are unfamiliar with this food. Example 9 rightly renders “purée” into MSA hariis هريس and awkwardly renders “broccoli” into “green cauliflower,” although this is a well-established Arabic loan. Since “leeks” in example 10 are not used often or differentiated from green onions, even the Arabic name is mostly unfamiliar to Arab viewers.

In examples 11 and 12, “bacon” is translated directly into a formal MSA word muqaddad مقدد alongside a generic word laHm لحم “meat,” which is mostly unfamiliar to Arab viewers and may create confusion as the image alone would indicate a food item forbidden to Muslims as “bacon” typically refers to “pork” in the west. Apparently, in these shows, “bacon” is made from beef rather than pork. The subtitler should have made this clear by explicitly referring to “beef” لحم بقر “oxen meat” to eliminate any misunderstanding. That is to say, neither the image of the food item nor the subtitles would remove the confusion. explicitation, therefore, is a necessary strategy in cases like these.

Examples 13

& 14 include two types of berries and their Arabic names in the subtitles. The issue here is that although the ST (source text) included the words for “raspberries” and “cranberries” and the subtitles contained the Arabic names for these two berries, the translations were incorrect as each berry was subtitled with the name of the other, viz. التوت البري is “cranberry” rather than “raspberry,” which is توت العليق.

4.1.2. Food textures and flavors

It is not only food and its types that are codeswitched, but its textures and flavors as well. This can include generic descriptors commonly used in Arabic as well as more specific terms (Tables 2 and 3).

Examples 15-

17 are of similar yet slightly different food categories and textures that all have exact Arabic names that distinguish them from the rest because they are usually used as a generic term that modifies an ingredient, e.g., صلصة طماطم “tomato sauce” or معجون طماطم “tomato paste.” Although these food items have Arabic names, it is not unusual for Arabic speakers to refer to them with codeswitching; in fact, the term in example 17, “sauce,” has been borrowed as صوص and is more used as a spoken Arabic word than the Arabic word in the subtitle. Furthermore, the borrowed term also appeared in the subtitles meaning both terms were seen as acceptable MSA options.

Table 2. Food textures

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Food Textures	15	Paste	معجون
	16	Purée	هريس
	17	Sauce	صلصة
	18	crumble حق الفلفل	فتات الفلفل المقرمش
	19	lemon curd	مهلبية الليمون
	20	Texture	الملمس
	21	So tough	انها قاسية جدا
	22	Crispy	رقائق مقرمشة
	23	Crunchiness ال	الطعم المقرمش
	24	Crispy	مقرمش

Table 3. Food flavors

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Food Textures	25	Strong	طعمها قوي
	26	Yes, actually, yours is sweet	اجل في الواقع خاصتك حلوة المذاق
	27	Sweet	طعمه حلو
	28	Spicy	حريفة
	29	It’s not really “حار” (spicy)	ليس حريفاً للغاية
	30	Acid	حامضي
	31	Fruity	فاكهية الرائحة
	32	bitterness	الطعم المر
	33	I loved it, smoke, acidity, textures.	أحببته، ففيه طعم الدخانوالنكهات الحامضة والملمس
	34	the acid is there for me; the salt is there	الطعم الحامض موجود وكذلك المملح

Crumble is translated directly in example 18, but the term is vague and could also refer to crumbs. Besides, the addition of “crunchy” in example 18 is unnecessary and inaccurate as it does not correctly describe the texture of the crumble. In example 19, “curd” is translated as مهلبية muhllabiya; the two are similar in content and texture, and this could be seen as a direct translation.

When it comes to texture descriptors, examples 20–22 show how codeswitching occurs. Example 20 shows how the term “texture” itself is used in English instead of the less accessible MSA term الملمس texture. In example 21, a contestant uses the adjective “tough” to describe meat, and the show immediately cuts to another contestant using the same Arabic equivalent used in the subtitles قاسية “tough.” In example 22, the adjective “crispy” is translated with the addition of the word رقائق “chips/flakes,” but not only is this addition unnecessary, but it is also incorrect. Examples 23 & 24 highlight the issue with this specific adjective. These examples refer to very similar yet slightly different textures. What distinguishes the two adjectives “crunchy” and “crispy” from one another is thickness, as “crunchiness” usually refers to thicker foods, while “crispiness” refers to thinner flakier foods. This distinction forms a partial lexical gap in Arabic, and the two are translated into the same term.

In examples 25–27, the addition of the terms “flavor” and “taste” to the adjectives does not mean they are unknown or ambiguous in Arabic; it is only meant to produce natural Arabic collocations with generic words, viz. طعمه حلو ‘with a sweet flavor” and حلو المذاق “its taste (is) sweet.” Strong is an indicator of intensity that can be used similarly in both languages, which is why it was translated directly. Examples 26 and 27 include the descriptor “sweet,” which is one of the five primary flavors detected by the tongue. The five main flavors are sweet, salty, bitter, sour, and Savory (umami). All these flavors have commonly known names in both English and Arabic, except for “Savory” (umami), which is becoming a borrowed term, making the codeswitching unnecessary.

Examples 28 and 29 involve describing “spiciness.” In example 28, the word “spicy” is used, while in example 29, the contestant begins codeswitching into English but switches back to Arabic upon reaching the word “spicy,” which shows how the word is readily available and understandable in Arabic. Unfortunately, the Arabic subtitle for “spicy” in both examples حريفة is far less accessible than the familiar حار “hot,” which was the term used by the contestant when he back-switched to Arabic in example 29. The term “acid” in example 30 is another readily available term in Arabic حامض, which requires no addition. However, the Arabic term for “acid” is the same as “sour,” which means two-to-one lexical correspondence, i.e. “acid” and “sour” both correspond to حامض when describing food.

Example 31 is translated with addition in order to explicate the English adjective “fruity” into فاكهية الرائحة “with a fruity smell because it does not call up a familiar corresponding Arabic adjective. Example 32 involves a class shift by adding a generic term and changing the English noun “bitterness” into an Arabic adjective مر “bitter,” in order natural the subtitle by avoiding the Arabic abstract noun مرارة “bitterness.” Similarly, addition is also used in examples 33 & 34 as MSA needs to be more explicit than English, despite it being clear that the flavor descriptors refer to flavors.

4.1.3. Culture-specific Food Items

Since many food items are not universal, in some instances, codeswitching becomes necessary. This also implies that direct translation is not always an option. In these cases, the subtitler must resort to a number of techniques, such as explication and addition (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4. Subtitling culture-specific food items using “explicitation” and “literal translation”

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Culture-specific Food Items	35	hash brown	بطاطس مبشورة مقلية
	36	lettuce wrap	لفائف الخس
	37	cold cut beef	لحم بقري بارد

Table 5. Subtitling culture-specific food items using “addition” and “transliteration”

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Culture-specific Food Items	38	شوربة Dumplings	(فطائر (ديم سوم
	39	dim sum	(فطائر (ديم سوم
	40	Cucumber gazpacho	غازباتشو) الخيار)
	41	Gazpacho cucumber	غازباتشو) الخيار)
	42	spring rolls	(سبرينح رول)
	43	agar, agar	الأجار، أجار
	44	So, this is falafel	هذه فلافل صحيح؟
	45	give me Makdous	أعطيني الباذنجان المخلل
	46	Durian	(فاكهة (الدوريان
	47	Every durian taste is different	تختلف نكهة كل حبة (دوريان) عن الاخرى
	48	Smell like durian	(تفوح منها رائحة (الدوريان
	49	Texture of durian	(ملمس فاكهة (دوريان
	50	(YUZU) عايز شوية	(حامض (اليوزو
	51	Yuzu	(ليمون ال(يوزو

The subtitles in examples 35–37 attempt to explicitate the codeswitched counterparts. In example 35, the familiar American breakfast dish “hash brown” does not have a direct translation, so the subtitler explicitated what they are made from and in what form they are prepared. In example 36, the subtiler failed to convey the intended meaning. Although the translation of “lettuce wrap” is direct, this combination of words is less meaningful in Arabic than its English ST, which signifies a widely used dish—a mixture of ingredients spread on a lettuce leaf. In example 37, the subtitler treated the ST as if it was comprised of three elements, i.e. “cold”, “cut” and “beef”, of which “cold” and “beef” were translated directly and “cut” was omitted. The subtitler failed to recognize that the term was actually comprised of two elements “cold cut”, which describes the type of preparation and style of the meat, and “beef” which describes its kind. As can be observed, these examples of explicitation would fail to verbally signify the food items in question if they were not accompanied by their images on the screen.

Examples 38 and 39 use a combination of addition and transliteration. This gives the viewer an extent of understanding despite the food item being foreign. This is done by using a classification/generic word the viewer is familiar with, which helps them link the new item to their own background knowledge of food. However, the descriptor used is too generic and may not produce the desired connotations. Additionally, the specific “dim sum” and generic “dumpling” are both rendered “dim sum pastries” in Arabic.

Examples 40-43

employ transliteration with no addition. In examples 40 and 41, “cucumber,” which is a generic ingredient, is translated directly, while gazpacho, which is the type of dish, is transliterated. This transliteration does not help the viewer understand what type of dish is being made. The use of explicitation could inform viewers that the dish is a type of cold vegetable soup. In a different episode, “gazpacho” was translated as شوربة “soup,” which is more comprehensible, but it could have been improved with the addition of the adjective باردة “cold.” Example 41 also shows the speaker’s first language’s influence on codeswitching as the modifier is placed after the noun rather than of before it the way it is in English. The use of transliteration in example 42 does not provide any extra information, as is the case with example 43. Additionally, since the word in example, 43 is a borrowed one, the use of subtitling was unnecessary, and it can even be argued it was not a case of codeswitching.

In most cases of codeswitching that involved food, the majority of the utterances were in Arabic, but the food was referred to in English. In examples 44 and 45, however, it is the other way around. While the subtitle in 44 rightly repeated the same familiar Arabic term falafel, the subtitle in 45 explicitate the Levantine Arabic term Makdous, perhaps for fear of not being understood by viewers outside of the Levant.

Examples 46-49

show how the subtitlers dealt with the durian fruit being a foreign item for the typical Arab viewer. The term “fruit” was used in examples 46 & 47, and the word “piece” was used in example 48. By example 49, the term “durian” had been used enough times in the episode to familiarize the audience with the fruit. The added descriptors were dropped, and the subtitles only used transliteration. Later uses in the episode do not include subtitles at all.

The addition of “citrus” in example 50 is the only example that indicates flavor. In example 51, “Yuzu” is rendered as “yuzu lemon,” although, in reality, it is a different type of citrus. The addition “citrus” is more accurate and, therefore, a better choice in translation. In some instances, it was transliterated without addition. Such subtitles do not benefit the viewer.

4.1.4. Desserts

It was common for the speakers to refer to desserts and baked goods with their English names. The subtitles show how this may have been necessary, as the Arabic terms are vague. These terms, therefore, could be seen as linguistic gaps (see Table 6).

Table 6. Terms relating to desserts

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Desserts	52	tart	البسكويتة
	53	lemon tart fresh و sour	فطيرة ليمون منعشة وحامضة
	54	كيكة الحليب	كعكة الحليب
	55	بالعسل Bonbon	الحلوى بالعسل

Examples 52 and 53 both contain the word “tart.” Although this term was borrowed into Arabic, it is translated into the names of two different baked goods. The translation البسكويتة “biscuit” is extremely far off, and while فطيرة “pie” is not an exact equivalent, though it is close in meaning. Although “tart” is a borrowed term, it is not widely used by Arabic speakers. This could justify the translator’s search for a different term. The borrowed term كيك “cake,” however, is widely used. Still, the subtitles in example 54 included the MSA equivalent and considered the localized term كعكة ka’keh a case of codeswitching, though كيك and كعك are employed distinctively by Arabic speakers. Bonbon, in example 55, is rendered as “dessert” or “sweet,” which is much too generic.

4.1.5. Food preparation and presentation

Food is not only consumed, but it is something that is prepared and presented, carefully created, and crafted. This is taken to a further extent in professional and television settings (Table 7).

Table 7. Terms relating to preparation and presentation

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Food preparation and presentation	56	let’s plate this	فلنضع المكونات في الطبق
	57	techniques وال presentation	التقنيات والتقديم
	58	Station	طاولة
	59	cookbook بتاعي	من كتاب الطبخ خاصتي
	60	Recipe	وصفة
	61	وسويت dressing ثانية	وأعددت تتبيلة جانبية
	62	pumpkin عبارة عن topping	زينة من اليقطين
	63	Fine dining	مأكولات فاخرة
	64	Plating	توزيع المكونات في الطبق
	65	Garnish	زينة
	66	شوية al dente مع dry fruit	قليل الاستواء مع فاكهة مجففة
	67	Medium well	متوسطة النضج

Most of the items relating to food preparation and presentation in Table 7 do not call for codeswitching. One wonders why the competitor would code-switch things like “main dish,” “cookbook,” “too much going on the salt side,” and “it’s light” when these expressions have familiar equivalents in Arabic, viz. مالح جدا ,كتاب الطبخ ,طبق رئيسي and طبق خفيف. The likely reason for codeswitching here is to show prestige and sound educated. There are some cases in Table 7 which may require codeswitching for lack of familiar Arabic equivalents, e.g., “dressing” and “topping”, which have been explicitated by the subtitler, viz. تتبيلة and زينة من اليقطين. Furthermore, both “topping” and “garnish” are translated as زينة “decoration,” a word not directly linked with food. One should note here that the subtitler confused قرع “pumpkin” with كوسا “zucchini,” but the image on the screen may take care of this distinction.

In example 63, “fine dining” is translated as “luxury foods,” which focuses on the quality aspect of fine dining but leaves out its customs. The concept of “plating,” in examples 56 & 64, involves an instance of conversion in English (converting a noun to a verb without making any change in the form) which is absolutely alien to Arabic, hence the need for lexical unpacking in the subtitle.

Examples 66 and 67 are concerned with the wellness of food or the degree to which it is cooked. Both terms mean that the food is not cooked entirely, and this is what is stated in the explicitated subtitles. Although this explicitation technically reflects the meaning, the ST terms are related to fine dining and cooking, a connection that makes it obvious that this degree of wellness is intentional and positive, while the subtitle may be understood as “undercooked,” which may have negative implications.

4.1.6. Courses

How many courses there are in a meal and in which order they are consumed is something that is linked to culture. This is also affected by the type of place where the meal is consumed; for example, home-cooked meals or fast food would have less rigid courses than fine dining at restaurants. What is usually known to the average person is the three-course meal typical to a restaurant which begins with an appetizer, followed by a main course, and ends with a dessert. In some episodes, the contestants are instead preparing an eight-course meal (Table 8).

Table 8. Terms relating to courses

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Courses	68	They need an eight-course menu break	يحتاجون إلى استراحة بقائمة من 8 أطباق
	69	main dish	طبق رئيسي
	70	Starter	مقبل
	71	cold appetizer?	المقبلات الباردة
	72	Pre-dessert	تحلية صغيره
	73	Dessert	تحلية

In example 68, the word “course” itself is mistranslated as طبق “dish.” Courses are related to the sequence in which dishes are served, and a single course may contain multiple dishes. In example 69, “main dish” is translated directly طبق رئيسي as it is a commonly used term. This is also the case with مقبل/مقبلات “starter”/“appetizer” in examples 70 and 71. Despite the Arabic term being common, some contestants used the British English term while others used the American one. The addition of the adjective “cold” in example 71 does not cause difficulty in translation, so the speakers could have easily said it in Arabic. The final of the main courses is “dessert” (example 73). Although it is common in the Arab world, the speakers resorted to codeswitching. The addition of the preposition “pre-,” however, poses a more difficult challenge. The subtitles rendered “pre-dessert” in example 72 as “small dessert,” which shows the size aspect of this course but removes the indication of sequence, which is essential to the very notion of courses.

4.1.7. Techniques

Table 9 includes some terms relating to cooking techniques. Example 74 contains two terms: “puree,” which is translated directly as هريس, and “minced,” which is translated into two words, “minced thickness,” by way of using explicitation.

Examples 75-

77 refer to cooking techniques, some of which were mistranslated. Although “searing” in example 76 was translated correctly as سفع, “curing,” which is a preservation technique where the food is immersed in salt, was mistranslated as نقع “marinate.” In example 77, “confit,” which involves cooking slowly on low heat, is mistranslated as مربى “jam.” Example 78 offers a different rendition محمر “reddened” of the same term, which is also a mistranslation. There is no word for this technique in Arabic; however, explicitation could have offered something like الطبخ على نار هادئة “cooking on a slow fire.” In example 79, this same technique is rendered as مطبوخ ببطء “slow-cooked,” which communicates the meaning. As can be observed, the same technique was translated into three different techniques.

Examples 80 & 81

are terms that have been adapted into Arabic through transliteration. Both المكرمل “caramelized” and مسوتة “sauté” are difficult to process for Arab viewers. They could have explicitated into القرنبيط بالكراميل “cauliflower with caramel” and خضروات مقليه بسرعة ‘quickly fried vegetables.” Note that “caramel” as an ingredient is a familiar loan in Arabic in contrast with the lexically derived passive participle (المكرمل), which derivationally corresponds to the English form.

Table 9. Terms relating to cooking techniques

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Techniques	74	أنا مش عايز puree أنا مش عايز minced	لا أريد هريسًا ولا سمكًا مفرومًا
	75	Curing	نقع
	76	searing	سفعتها
	77	confit البصل	مربي البصل
	78	بصل confit مع الزبدة	بصل محمر بالزبدة
	79	confit حامض	ليمون مطهو ببطء
	80	caramelized cauliflower	القرنبيط المكرمل
	81	خضروات sauté	خضرواتها مسوتة
	82	Torching	إحراق
	83	grilled asparagus	الهليون المشوي
	84	asparagus عملتله blanching بالمية	سلقت الهليون بالماء بشكل طفيف
	85	braised	انا اطهوها على نار خفيفة
	86	Braising	سأطهوها بالمرق على نار خفيفة

Although “torch” had been translated correctly earlier, “torching” in example 82 is mistranslated as “burning.” There is no exact equivalent for “torching” in Arabic, but يحمص بالمشعل “roasting with a torch” would be closer to the intended meaning. Since “Grilled” in example 83 has an exact Arabic equivalent مشوي, the codeswitching was unnecessary. By contrast, since there is no Arabic word for the term in example 84, “blanch,” the use of codeswitching and explicitation in the subtitling are the best ways to convey the technique. “Braising” in example 85 is a cooking method that entails slow cooking with some added moisture. This added moisture differentiates it from covered roasting, and it is different from stewing as it uses less liquid. The explicitation in example 86 does not provide all the components of this technique, unlike the cooking term in example 84. Detailed techniques such as these may not have Arabic equivalents, and, therefore, the subtitler has to compensate by explicitating the cooking method.

4.1.8. Tools

Not only are the skillsets of a chef on a different level, but they may also have access to more equipment.

Table 10 includes some cooking equipment and tools. Example 87 refers to a cooking utensil that is used for mixing and spreading things, while example 88 includes the word “toothpicks,” which was incorrectly subtitled as “skewers.” Arabs refer to freezers using the English word, but the Arabic word which was used for the subtitle in 89 is too vague as it does not distinguish between a refrigerator or a freezer. While “torch” in example 90 was translated directly as it performs a simple well-known task, addition was needed in the rendition of “smoker,” so generic words like “machine” and “gun” were added (examples 91 and 92). The tool in example 93 is one that is new to even the chef; in this example, the subtitles use explicitation by providing a rendition that explains the function of the tool. This correct rendition is even used in example 94 despite the contestant mispronouncing the word. Example 95 uses this same term, despite the ST containing a different tool.

Table 10. Terms relating to tools

Category	No.	Code-Switched Item	Arabic
Terms relating to tools	87	spatula	مبسط
	88	Toothpicks	في أسياخ
	89	freezer	الثلاجة
	90	blow torch	مشعل
	91	Smoker	مسدس التدخين
	92	Smoker	آلة التدخين
	93	gourmet whip	خفاقة غاز
	94	Gourmet	خفاقة غاز
	95	Siphon	خفاقة

4.1.9. Non-food related items

Although codeswitching may seem like it would require the speaker to put thoughts in their choice of language, it often comes naturally. Codeswitching can be influenced by both the speaker and the utterance itself. Table 6 above mostly includes examples of formulaic expressions that are typically used in English to lubricate and enhance the social atmosphere. Again, codeswitching items like “bravo,” “merci,” “well done,” “thank you,” etc., instead of their familiar Arabic counterparts, must be an index for prestige and a good education. Similar examples, and other codeswitched utterances, may not relate directly to food; however, they are typical for food competition shows. Although “reality” is in the name of the genre, it only feigns reality, and a good amount of it is scripted. Therefore, even this genre has its conventions and cliches. The examples above fall into that category and are lines typically heard in cooking competition shows. This means that the codeswitching is the result of the speakers repeating common quotes as they often appear in shows like the original show this version is a localization of.

The analysis shows how subtitles can be used as a tool to measure the justification of codeswitching. For instance, direct translation implies CS is not justified as there are proper equivalents. The use of addition and explicitation indicates a partial lexical gap which justifies CS, and the use of other techniques such as transliteration, borrowing, substitution, and paraphrase indicate complete lexical gaps that call for codeswitching. Naturalization is the only justification for codeswitching that cannot be gauged through the addition of a subtitle.

The justification for the provision of subtitles, however, could also be argued. While they were necessary in some cases and could clarify through addition and explicitation, in some cases, these tags were unnecessary. Furthermore, the use of transliteration on its own does not provide additional information than what is delivered in the audio. Another issue in the use of transliteration was the confusion of borrowed terms with codeswitched ones. There was also the question of accuracy, where the use of hypernyms, near-synonyms, and cultural substitutions presented false equivalences. Finally, there was the issue of familiarity, where the subtitlers failed to recognize whether the codeswitched term or the MSA one was more accessible to the audience.

4.2. Impact of gender and geographical area on codeswitching

In this section, we answer the second and third research questions and investigate whether gender affects the frequency of codeswitching (Table 11) and whether the competitor’s geographical area affects the amount of codeswitching (Table 12). As mentioned before, statistics on gender and geographical location are based on examples extracted from the second episode of seasons 1–6. Each utterance is considered a single instance of CS regardless of the number of codeswitched terms in the said utterance.

Table 11. Distribution of codeswitching in terms of gender in episode 2 of the six seasons

Season	Gender	Number of Participants and Judges	Number of codeswitched items	Average of code-switched items across participants per gender
Season 1	Male	17	85	5
	Females	7	4	0.57
Season 2	Male	16	188	11.75
	Females	5	44	8.80
Season 3	Male	13	199	15.31
	Females	10	124	12.4
Season 4	Male	12	114	9.5
	Females	9	33	3.67
Season 5	Male	14	98	7
	Females	5	38	7.60
Season 6	Male	15	265	17.67
	Females	4	86	21.50

Table 12. Distribution of codeswitching in terms of geographical area

Season 1		Season 2		Season 3		Season 4		Season 5		Season 6
Episode 2		Episode 2		Episode 2		Episode 2		Episode 2		Episode 2
Syrian	4	Lebanese	37	Moroccan	47	Saudi	18	Saudi	26	Lebanese	77
Jordanian	2	Egypt	27	Algerian	46	Lebanese	12	Lebanese	25	Egypt	72
Morocco	1	Algerian	16	Lebanese	46	Egypt	9	Egypt	12	Saudi	45
Lebanese	1	Saudi	16	Saudi	23	Kuwaiti	8	Bahraini	10	Tunisian	36
		Moroccan	13	Syrian	13	Moroccan	7	Tunisian	7	Sudanese	28
		Syrian	11	Tunisian	12	Jordanian	3	Syrian	7	Iraqi	9
		Jordanian	7	Egyptian	12	Tunisian	3	Palestinian	6	Jordanian	7
		Omani	7	Bahraini	9	Algerian	3	Black me	3	Emirati	5
		Palestinian	3	Jordanian	7	Iraqi	2	Moroccan	3	Palestinian	3
		Kuwait	2	Palestinian	5	Bahraini	1	Algerian	2
						Gulf	1	Gulf	1
						Syrian	1
						Palestinian	1

By examining Table 11, we can readily see that the number of male competitors is higher than that of female competitors (87 vs. 40). The males code-switched 949 items compared with 329 items for the females. The ratio of codeswitching between the two genders turns out to be 10.91 for males vs. only 5.26 for females. This high discrepancy in the ratio may indicate that males are more prestige conscious than females, which is a surprising finding given the generally subordinate role females play in relatively conservative Arab communities. That is, female competitors are expected to code-switch more than males in such shows in order to communicate high prestige and a good education. Surprisingly, however, things take the opposite direction. One explanation may have to do with females attempting to show more self-confidence than males by demonstrating better language competence in Arabic.

This section first examines the relationship between codeswitching and geographical area in terms of some Mid-eastern counties (Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia) vs North African countries (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia). Let us choose season 4, in which each of the six countries is represented by a competitor. Season 4 shows that ME countries score 21 instances of codeswitching against only 13 instances for NA countries. This finding may indicate that codeswitching to English is rather limited in NA countries compared to ME ones, something that may have to do with the colonizer’s language (French in NA countries vs. English in most ME countries).

Let us now look at two ME countries: Jordan and Lebanon, in which the colonizer’s language (English) had a minor impact on the former, whereas the colonizer’s language (French) had a major impact on the latter to see the codeswitching frequency. The countries also contrast in the nature of the language situation. While the language situation is receptive to foreign language use (formerly French and currently a steady shift to English), its Jordanian counterpart is more traditional, where Arabic dominates the scene. A simple comparison between any TV entertainment program on a Lebanese channel and a Jordanian channel can readily show the difference regarding codeswitching. It seems that the tendency to employ codeswitching carries over to cooking shows. This is readily evident by looking at seasons 3, 4, and 6, where Lebanese competitors scored 135 code-switches against only 17 for their Jordanian counterparts. This huge discrepancy indicates that the flexibility of the language situation strongly impacts the use of codeswitching.

We expect the same kind of tendency to hold between Lebanon and Syria, despite the fact that they shared the same colonizer’s language (French). The language situation is even more traditional in Syria than in Jordan. In fact, Syria is the only Arab country where Arabicization came to completion a long time ago; all specialties at the university level are taught in Arabic, in contrast with other Arab countries in which the hard sciences like mathematics and medicine are taught in English. In seasons 3 and 4, the Lebanese competitors scored 58 codeswitches compared with only 14 codeswitches for the Syrian competitors. Apparently, the geographical area (ME vs. NA) and the language situation impact the frequency of codeswitching to English on the Arabic Top Chef TV reality program.

5. Discussion and analysis

Codeswitching is employed in cooking competition shows to naturalize and fill in gaps, but it is also used to signal prestige/good education and express solidarity. The codeswitches can be categorized into food-related and non-food-related. Food-related examples include ingredients, foods, cooking techniques, and cooking tools and apparatuses. The partial subtitles employed translation strategies often associated with culture-bound expressions, such as direct translation, explicitation, addition, omission, compensation, and substitution.

There is a divide in the preparation and consumption of food in the everyday form and that of fine dining and the professional setting, and a difference between the home cook and the professional chef. The judges and contestants of cooking shows often come from professional backgrounds with culinary training and restaurant kitchen experience. The environment in these settings places high standards on ingredients, technique, and skill, as well as a professional standard with the language used. More importantly, fine dining, which is at the core of these settings, has a high Western or European influence. In addition to the possibility of the existence of lexical gaps, this divide between home cooking and professional cooking could be a major cause of codeswitching. This is because the Arab chefs may have received their training from foreign ones, or this could have led the English and even French vocabulary to seep into the Arab use. Furthermore, this is evident in the fact that the speakers were more likely to switch to English when referring to foreign items or ingredients and dishes more popular in other countries and cultures and, in most cases, tended to stick to Arabic with familiar foods. In some cases, specific foods and ingredients were referred to in English, while the general type was referred to in Arabic; this is because the generic may be familiar while the specific is not.

Additionally, alongside codeswitching, the foreign influence on food results in borrowing. In the cases where the separation of the alienness from the food was difficult or impossible, the subtitlers resorted to transliteration as well as addition. When it comes to transliteration, the use of brackets distinguishes between codeswitching and borrowing. In some instances, borrowed terms were deemed codeswitching and placed in brackets despite the lack of need for a subtitle in the first place. This was even done without addition a few times. The use of addition familiarized the foreign foods by placing them in a generic category or likening them to a food known to Arab viewers. However, this is not always accurate, which can cause misconceptions. When addition was insufficient, the subtitler occasionally resorted to explicitation, explaining the elements of the food or the cooking process. Moreover, although it was rare, in a few cases, the subtitler resorted to lexical creation when in reality, it defeats the purpose of the subtitles, which aim to help the viewer understand unknown words.

Although the subtitlers may aid in the understanding of some unknown English foods and English terms, for some terms, even the Arabic term, may be difficult for some viewers. This is due to two reasons: the first being the technicality of some terms and the fact that the subtitles employ MSA terms that are inaccessible to many viewers. This means that the viewers need to process a form of codeswitching between the dialect of the speaker and MSA, both of which may be different from the dialect of the viewer. Since some words are technical, they may be difficult to understand even for the subtitler himself/herself, who is not specialized in food and who, apparently, falls back on dictionaries to access such terms. This sometimes results in some inconsistencies and even a few errors in the subtitles.

Food-related examples were mostly on the word/phrase level, but non-food-related examples could reach the sentence level. The sentence-level codeswitching was mostly done by the multilingual judge, perhaps to signal prestige and express solidarity as CS may be used to indicate status or elitism, as stated by Auer (1984), Yusuf (2012), and Georges and Farghal (2013), and while the contestants who spoke English as a foreign language mostly limited their codeswitching to words and short phrases.

The data showed that CS was used mostly as intra-sentential examples for reasons which included the use of jargon, naturalization, lexical gaps, and clarification on the inter-sentential level. CS cases resembled quotation and cliché; there were also instances of both types that cannot be explained outside of speaker choice or preference. The subtitles used a variety of translations and subtitling techniques to deal with the CS incidents but did not follow specific reasonings. The aim of subtitles is accessibility and clarification, and thus must employ the prime technique to achieve this. For this to be done, the use of CS and the purpose of each translation technique must be understood.

Since simple and straightforward direct translation is the most easily understood, it should be employed whenever possible. This technique can be used when there are no lexical gaps, and linguistic equivalence is possible. This is most likely to be found when the CS is used for naturalization or without a specific reason, such as preference. When it comes to lexical gaps, translation techniques used with culture-specific items should be employed. Transliteration and borrowing may be employed but do not serve an actual purpose nor achieve clarification in partial subtitling. Thus, these techniques must only be used alongside clarifying techniques such as the use of addition and explicitation. The use of hypernyms is also possible but not ideal on its own as it gives a general understanding, but nuance is typically lost. Cultural substitution has similar effects but could also lead to cultural erasure and should therefore be avoided. Finally, there is the issue of differentiation between CS and borrowing, as borrowed terms are familiar and need no translation, and providing these translations may only distract the viewers. The goal of subtitling is clarification and, therefore, should not be distracting or confusing. Furthermore, when working with language variants, it is important to examine the accessibility of the source word; while using explication techniques may be useful in some cases, there is the potential for over-complication. Therefore, translators must first understand the use of codeswitching and use the technique or combination best suited for each type.

By analyzing the naturalness of the Arabic terms in the subtitles and their closeness to their English counterparts, it becomes evident when codeswitching is necessary and when it is not. Though it is easy to explain the resort to codeswitching from a linguistic perspective, personal motivation is harder to determine. It is especially difficult to detect elitism as motivation in a franchise built on the blend of elitism and accessibility.

In terms of gender, it was very clear that males code-switched much more than females. This runs counter to the expectation that females would be more prone to codeswitching than males due to the subordinate status they hold in Arab communities. Apparently, however, males seem to be more prestige conscious through the use of codeswitching, while females are keener on emphasizing their self-confidence through showing language competence in L1 (Arabic).

As for the competitor’s geographical area, it seems to influence the frequency of codeswitching. ME competitors are found to use more code-switches than their NA counterparts. While it is difficult to determine the cause, one may attribute this to the different colonizer’s languages in the two groups (English vs French). The language situation (traditional vs. flexible) in the competitor’s home country is also found to impact the frequency of codeswitching, i.e., the more receptive to foreign language use, the more instances of codeswitching, e.g., Lebanon vs. Jordan and Syria.

6. Conclusion

The participants of differing gender and nationality identities all employed CS in their speech. The data showed that males codeswitched more than females and that participants from the Middle East were most likely to codeswitch.

Intra-sentential codeswitching was the most prominent form and was often used with food and cooking jargon. This shows how CS related to topic and subject matter as well as lexical variation between the two languages. Inter-sentential subtitling was used but to a lesser extent. Furthermore, these cases were more generic and not limited to food terminology. The sentences uttered entirely in English, to a degree, fall into the cliché/quotation category, which shows the participants’ higher sentence-forming capabilities in their first language. Since CS was mostly used for specialized terminology, its use is justified, but in some cases, general terms could have been stated in the first language limiting the linguistic gaps and barriers between speaker and audience.

The use of partial subtitles put emphasis on the CS incidents and highlighted their perceived inaccessibility. The subtitles used translation techniques such as transliteration, addition, and explicitation, which are common in dealing with culture-bound expressions, but since the subtitles only covered the foreign elements, temporal and spatial constraints were less strict. Moreover, since the subtitles were only employed with codeswitched items, it showed which terms were considered codeswitching. However, the examination showed that some borrowed terms and even some Arabic terms were included. This indicates that not all subtitles were necessary. Although the subtitles were added to clarify the participants’ speech, in some cases, the phrasing was too complex or unnatural to Arabic speakers. These faults were often the result of the difference between spoken colloquial dialects and the written MSA.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Literature, Publishing and Translation Commission, Ministry of Culture, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia This study was funded by the Literature, Publishing and Translation Commission, Ministry of Culture, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under [141/2022] as part of the Arabic Observatory of Translation.

Notes on contributors

Mohammed Farghal

Mohammed Farghal is currently Professor of Linguistics and Translation/Department of English and Translation/Applied Science University. He has authored/coauthored more than a 100 scholarly papers in linguistics and translation studies, which have been published in highly recognized international linguistics and/or translation studies journals. He is also the author of many books, and three volumes in a series of 'Arabic-English translation studies'. Also, he has made many translations of important literary works.

Ahmad S. Haider

Ahmad S Haider received the PhD degree in linguistics from University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He is an associate professor in the Department of English Language and Translation, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan. He is also a researcher at the MEU Research Unit, Middle East University, Amman, Jordan. His current research focuses on how political events are socially, discursively, and linguistically represented in media combining corpus linguistics and (critical) discourse analysis. His main areas of interest include corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, and translation studies.

Susan Abu Tair

Sausan Abu Tair holds a Master's degree in Audio-visual and Mass Media Translation from the Applied Science Private University. Her main areas of interest include discourse analysis and translation studies.