Bilingual Code-Mixing

1. Bilingual Code-Mixing Genesee, F. Paradis, J. & Crago, M. B. (2004)

2. What is code-mixing? Code-mixingis the use of elements from two languages in the same utterance or in the same stretch of conversation. Intrautterance code-mixing (intrasentential) Inter-utterance code-mixing (intersentential)

3. The mixed elements can include whole words, phrases or clauses, and even pragmatic patterns (repetition). (sounds, inflectional morphemes)

4. Adult Code-Mixing • mixing in formal/informal settings • grammaticality of mixing • Types of mixing and level of proficiency • “flagging” • Adult BCM is grammatically, socially and culturally constrained; it is not random.

5. Why Do Bilingual Children Code-mix? • Unitary Language System Hypothesis Children(2-4 years old) in the process of acquiring 2 languages • Children initially represent the two languages in a single neurocognitive system. Problems with this argument

6. Gap Filling Hypothesis • BCM serves to fill gaps in the developing child’s linguistic competence. • Lexical Gap Hypothesis! • Evidences for this hypothesis: • Young bilingual children codemix more when they use their less proficient language. • Children codemix are much more likely to mix words for which they do not know the translation equivalent regardless of whether they are using their less or more proficient language. • In addition, children can codemix when an appropriate word might not exist in the target language.

7. Mixing to fill gaps in children’s lexical or syntactic knowledge in their languages reflects their communicative competence.

8. When bilingual children encounter monolingual people; • They may not know the appropriate words in the target language, • They may fail to grasp that the interlocutor is monolingual, • They may not know many monolingual people in their daily lives THEREFORE, they may persist in codemixing!

9. Pragmatic Explanations • Bilingual children may code-mix for pragmatic effect: • To emphasize what they are saying • To quote what someone else said • To protest • To narrate • Moreover, one of their languages may have more affective load than the other, and they may use that language to express emotion when they speak.

10. Social Norms • Acquiring appropriate community-based patterns of code-mixing is an important part of bilingual children’s language socialization. • In some communities, there is a great deal of tolerance and acceptance of mixing. • BCM can be an important marker of social identity. • Social norms in individual families can also influence child BCM.

11. Persistence in using inappropriate mixing patterns even after some experience might suggest other factors are at play: • Code-mixing fills gaps in the child’s proficiency in the TL, • Code-mixing is pragmatic, • Code-mixing asserts the child’s identity as a bilingual person or a member of a different cultural group.

12. Is child bilingual code-mixing grammatically constrained or deviant??? • Studies show that the vast majority of bilingual children’s code-mixing is systematic and conforms to the grammatical constraints of the two participating languages. • Children learn to code-mix grammatically at the same time they learn their two languages, in other words, it comes automatically with being a bilingual learner. • In addition, they learn the frequency or patterns of mixing that characterize their own families and communities.

13. BCM • is a typical and widespread pattern of language among bilingual children and adults. • is a communicative source. • is shaped by social norms. • may reflect the child’s cultural identity.

14. Some implications • BCM should not be taken as evidence for language delay or impairment. • Children should not be scolded or explicitly discouraged from code-mixing. • Most bilingual children will adapt to the communicative demands of monolingual social situations, given appropriate time and supportive encouragement.

15. CODE-MIXING IN EARLY L2 LEXICAL ACQUISITION Joanna Rokita (2006)

16. INTRODUCTION • Theinfluence of age on secondlanguageacquisition • The Helen Doronmethod Doronarguesthatearlyinstruction is neurological: “thechild’sbrainrapidlyoverdevelopsbetweentheages 2 and 10, beinghyperactive at formingtrillions of neuronconneciton…

17. INTRODUCTION • Doron’sinvestigationconsists of thesequestions: • Do early L2 learnerscode-mix, andifso, • Whatarethereasonsforcode-mixing, and • Whattype of code-mixing do theyperform?

18. Code-mixing vs. Code-switching • Code-switching: “alternateuse of twoormorelanguages in thesameutteranceorconversation” Question: Intentionalor not? • AccordingtoAppelandMuysken(1987) code-mixing is an intrasententialswitchoccuring in themid-sentence.

19. Thepossiblefunctions of code-mixing • Referential • Directive • Expressive • Phatic • Metalinguistic • Poetic

20. TheStudy • Thesubjectsarefourveryyounglearners of English Ada Anastazja Danusia Konrad andtwochildrenfrombilingualfamilies: Zosia Zbys

21. Data Analysis • Youngbilinguals put twowordsfromdifferentlanguages in juxtaposition Example: Zosia : Mamglasses. Zbys: Niemaworm (I’vegotglasses) (There’s no worm)

22. Data Analysis • Since thePolishlanguagesystemdiffersconsiderablyfromtheEnglishsystem, thechildseemstoobservethedifferenceand, whilechoosingandEnglishwordforthePolishsentence, addsthePolishaccuasativecase marker –a Example: Z paniasobienarysujehedgehog-a (I’lldraw a hedgehogwiththelady)

23. Data Analysis 3. Thechildovergeneralisetherule of thepluralending –s andextend it toPolishlexis. Example: “Tosamoje balon-s.”

24. Data Analysis 4. Therules of conjugationaretransferredontoEnglishverbs. Example: “Mamusiu, coty do-isz?”

25. Data Analysis 5. Finally, insertion is not theonlytype of code-mixing. Theexample is: Eeh, ubralsiebo jest zimno, /je/. (Eeh, he put on clothes, becausehe’scold, yeah)

26. Do earlylearnerscode-mix? Whattypeorforwhatreason do earlylearners Code-mix? Example: Ada : To jest bardzodobre, yummyyummy. (This is verygood, yummyyummy.) Anastazja : To jest mojdaddy. (This is mydaddy.)

27. Do earlylearnerscode-mix? • Theexamplesfrom Ada andAnastazjaclearlyfulfilthecriteria of theinsertiontype of code-mixing. 7. Konrad : “Daj mi mojbus” (Givememybus) “duzytruck” (a bigtruck) Intheexamplebelow, theEnglishwords “bus” and “truck” areclearlymucheasierthanthePolishequivalents.

28. Do earlylearnerscode-mix? • Danusia has managedtoacquire an L2 grammaticalruleuniqueforthislanguage, namelyarticle: Example: “ Yummy!” “ Co jest “yummy” ( What is yummy?) “ A galaretka. ( A jelly)

29. Conclusion Lexicalinterferenceor transfer is a dominant Phenomenon of thesimultaneousacquisition of twolanguages. It is doubtfulif it is considered startingage of languagecriterionforcallingthe languageacquisition “ simultaneous.” Duetothe Limitedamount of L2 input, theacquisition rate is muchslower.

30. Japanese-English Conversational Codeswitching in Balanced and Limited Proficiency Bilinguals Sandra S. Fotos

31. Introduction • Over half of the world’s population is bi- or multilingual. • One-third speaking English as first or second language or learning it as a foreign language. • A flexible multilingual perspective on language is more representative of the real-world situation. • Thepractise of mixinglanguages is an importantcommunicationstrategy in multilingualcommunities. • Inthisstudy, it is JAPAN.

32. Introduction • increasing bi or multilingualism in Japan. • This study aims to analyze Japanese-English code-switching in two types of bilinguals: • those with equal proficiency in their two languages, • those with only limited proficiency in English.

33. LiteratureReview • What is bilingualism? • The condition of knowing two languages rather than one. • It does not necessarily mean equivalently high levels of proficiency in both languages. • Balanced bilinguals are quite rare. • Thus, researchers have come to accept that a person may be called bilingual even with a very limited proficiency in the second language.

34. LiteratureReview • What are the effects of bilingualism on cognitive development? • From the early 19th century up to the mid 1950s, the common belief was that bilingualism had an harmful effect on intellectualdevelopment. • Withtheresearchconductedafter 1950s, luckily, it wasfoudthatmonolingualsandbilingualsdid not differsignificantly in intelligence.

35. LiteratureReview • Inmid 1960s anothermajorshift in viewoccured. • Studiessuggestedthatthebilinguals had greatermentalflexibilitythanmonolinguals. • Theywereabletothinkmoreabstractlyandwerethereforesuperiortomonnolinguals in conceptformation. • Finally, thepositive transfer effectwasalsosuggestedto be benefittingtothebilinguals. • However, thisresearch has beencriticized as beingoverlyoptimistic.

36. LiteratureReview • Whataboutrecentperspectives on bilingualismandcognition? • Valdes & Figueranotethatbilingualsdifferefrommonolinguals, whetherpositivelyornegatively, in threemainareas: • in cognitivedevelopment • İn thenature of brainhemisphereinvolvement in thelearningandprocessing of L1 and L2 • İn thenature of informationprocessing • Cummins (1984) ThresholdsTheoryproposesthatbilinguals’ level of competence in the L2 is thecriticalvariable in determiningwhetherbilingualism is negative, neutraloradditive in terms of cognitiveskills.

37. LiteratureReview • Whataboutcode-switching? • Durinthe 1950s, it wasassumed taht code-switchingwasrandomandwasthesign of someonewhocouldn’t talk fluently in eitehrlanguage. • Code-switchingwasregarded as abnormalandbad in nearlyeverysociety in which it occuredbecause of underlyingideologies of linguisticpurity. • However, research has shownthat it is systematicandrule-governedandservesimportantsocolinguisticfunctions. • Todaycode-switching is recognizedto be a legitimate form of communicationforpeoplewholive in multilingualcommunitiesand is investigated as an important urban contactphenomenon.

38. LiteratureReview • Twomainlines of research on code-switching: • syntacticnature of switch • thesociolinguisticfunction of switch

39. LiteratureReview • syntacticnature of switch • Itinvestigatesthetype of constraints on switchingwhichfunctiontomaintainthegramaticalityduringtheswitch. • The general conclusionistahtcode-switching is almostalwaysgrammatical. • Less-proficientbilingualstendtoswitchsingleitemssuch as nounsoridioms. • On theotherhand, proficientbilingualsareabletoswitchgramatically at thesentencelevel

40. LiteratureReview • thesociolinguisticfunction of switch • Situationalcode-switching • Suchresearchinvestigatesswitchingforestablishmentandmaintenance of socialrelationships. • Itdepends on thesettingandtherolesandthetherelationship of tehpeopleinvolved. So, in somecontextsswitching is unmarkedwhile in others it si un unusualand un expected, so it is marked. • ConversationalCode-switching • Bilinguaşsoftentendtodiscuscertaintopicsonly in onelanguageand not in theother. • Thediscoursemarkerswhichdistinguishframesareusuallycode-switched.It is possibletoexpresspersonalfeelings in onelanguageandtheobjectiveevents in theother.

41. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • In her report, Fotos presents the findings from her analysis of the data that she collected in two preliminary studies. • Those earlierstudies collected data from respectively four English-Japanese bilingual children and limited-proficiency bilingual Japanese university EFL learners. • Her comparison of two data sets indicated (Fotos, 1990) that regardless of their proficiency level, limited-proficiency bilinguals, just like balanced bilinguals, maintained grammaticality in their codeswitching during conversation. Also, codeswitching of both groups served useful discourse management functions.

42. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Fhotosasked 3 researchquestions: 1. What items were most frequently switched by the limited-proficiency bilingual EFL learners and was the switching generally grammatical? 2. What functions did the switches serve in the conversations of the EFL learners? 3. Were there significant differences in the switching patterns between the limited-proficiency EFLlearners and the balanced bilingual children reported on previously (Fotos, 1990)?

43. METHODS BALANCED BILINGUAL CHILDREN • The subjects were two bilingual American older sister/younger brother sibling sets attending an international school in Tokyo. That they were balanced bilinguals was proven by tests. • Data Collection:Data was obtained by leaving a tape recorder on two occasions of 4 hours in total. Only 40 minutes of data was transcribed and analyzed. For quantitative analysis, switches were coded into syntactic categories (i.e., noun, verb, dependent clause, etc.) following the categories used by Poplack (1980). • Data Analysis: To determine what function the switch performed in the conversation, the categories proposed in the research literature (switching to clarify meaning, to get and hold attention, to change or focus on the topic of discussion, to use special items culturally linked to one of the languages, to indicate reported speech, and to personalize or objectivize events) were used to examine representative switches.

44. METHODS LIMITED-PROFICIENCY JAPANESE EFL LEARNERS • The subjects of the second study were 53 first-year Japanese university EFL learners, most of whom were male. The learners had one required 90-minute period per week of oral English with a native speaker instructor. The instructor was Fotos herself. That they were limited-proficiency bilinguals was proven by tests. • Data Collection: Groups of 3-4. 1. Adverb placement task (8 mins)- Generation of grammar rules 2. Indirect object placement (23 mins)- Correct vs. incorrect discussion 3. Relative clause task (9 mins)- Correct vs. incorrect discussion & Generation of grammar rules

45. METHODS All task performances were audiotaped. A total of six and a halfhours of audiotapewasobtained. A balancedbilingual Japanese research assistant transcribed the tapes in full, writing out the Japanese utterances inromaji (Roman letters). • Data Analysis: For quantitative analysis, switches were coded into the same syntactic categories used in the firststudy.

46. ResultsandDiscussion

47. ResultsandDiscussion

48. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION DISCOURSE FUNCTIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL CODESWITCHING • Switching to indicate topics: EFL learners codeswitched task-related terms. e.g. task recording haitteiru?enter-ing “Is it being recorded?” The bilingual children codeswitched culturally-linked terms. They discussed school-related terms in English since they attended an international school. e.g. This bracelet was for sanbyakuen.three hundred yen “This bracelet was for three hundred yen.”

49. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2. Switching for emphasis: This was usually in the form of repetition of the important utterenace in the switched-to language. EFL learners: e.g. Place adverbs between noun and nounMeishi to meishi no aida.nounwithnounPoss. between “Betweennounandnoun.” Thebilingualchildren:e.g. The hammer was in the hand like this.Kouiufuuni. ??????????? “Likethis.”

50. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION • 3. Switching for Clarification:It includes elaboration, with the phrase after the switch containing more information than the original utterance. EFL learners: e.g. My English ability is very short/ I don't say well. İitaikotogaienai. want-to-say thing Top. can’t say “I can’t say what I want to say.” The bilingual children: e.g. They were really fake/ but they were exactly like Reeboks. Honmonomitai. Zettainihonmononi mite iru.real like absolutely Loc. real Loc. like is “They look like the real thing. They absolutely lok like the real thing.”