Code-switching as a Communicative Strategy in ...

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature

Soňa Záňová

Code-switching as a Communicative Strategy in Bilingual Children Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Chovanec, PhD.

2011

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Soňa Záňová

2

I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D. for providing me with valuable advice and resources. Then I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and patience, and especially Robert Pinkerton for his kind advice and comments.

3

Table of Contents 1. Intoduction .................................................................................................................... 5 2. Bilingualism Defined .................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Types of Bilingualism .............................................................................. 6 2.2 Types of Bilingual Acquisition in Childhood (Romaine 1995: 183–185) 8 2.3 Stages of Bilingual Acquisition (Baker 1949: 79–79) ............................. 8 3. Code-switching (CS) Defined ....................................................................................... 9 3.1 Types of CS .............................................................................................. 9 3.1.1. Situational vs. Metaphorical ....................................................... 9 3.1.2. Participant-related vs. Discourse-related .................................... 9 3.1.3. Intrasentential, Intersentential, Tag-switching .......................... 10 3.1.4. Triggering ................................................................................. 11 3.1.4.1 Types of Triggering according to Michael Clyne (1967: 84) .......... 12 4. CS, Borrowing and Code-mixing Distinguished ........................................................ 14 4.1 Borrowing .............................................................................................. 14 4.1.1. Loan word (nonce borrowing) ........................................ 14 4.1.2. Loanshift ......................................................................... 15 4.2 Code-mixing (CM) ................................................................................. 15 5. Older vs. Younger Children in Relation to CS ............................................................ 17 5.1. Differenciating the Two Languages ...................................................... 17 5.2. Linguistic Sophistication and CS .......................................................... 17 5.3. More Purposes of CS in Older Children ............................................... 18 6. Purposes of Code-switching (CS) ............................................................................... 19 6.1. Emphasis ............................................................................................... 19 6.2. Substitution ........................................................................................... 19 6.3. Introduction of Certain Topics .............................................................. 20 6.4. No Equivalence ..................................................................................... 20 6.5. Reinforcement of a Request ................................................................. 20 6.6. Clarification of a Point – Repetition .................................................... 21 6.7. Social Distance – Solidarity .................................................................. 22 6.8. Quoting.................................................................................................. 22 6.9. Communicating Common Identity ....................................................... 25 6.10. Excluding People from a Conversation ............................................. 26 6.11. Including People in a Conversation .................................................... 27 6.12. Ease Tension and Inject Humor ......................................................... 29 6.13. Change of Attitude ............................................................................. 29 7. Other Purposes ............................................................................................................ 31 7.1. Topic Change ........................................................................................ 31 7.2. Addressing Oneself .............................................................................. 32 7.3. Arousing Attention ................................................................................ 33 7.4. Expressing Opposition .......................................................................... 34 7.5. Hedging ................................................................................................. 36 7.6. Showing Respect ................................................................................... 37 8. Attitudes towards CS................................................................................................... 39 8.1 Societal Evaluation of CS ...................................................................... 39 8.2 Bilinguals’ Perception of CS .................................................................. 39 9. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 41 10. Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 43

4

1. Intoduction Code-switching is a phenomenon that has interested me since I first heard about it in the Sociolinguistics course. Even though I was not raised bilingually, I find myself multilingual, because I started learning English and German language at a quite young age. Therefore code-switching has always been familiar to me, although I did not have a label for it. As I was an Erasmus student in Germany, I could observe code-switching with myself and the rest of the students. All these factors brought me to choose to explore this area of linguistics in greater depth. Code-switching has often been discouraged, mainly in bilingual children, as a token of language incompetence. Therefore, I would like to point out in my thesis that code-switching is a normal behaviour linked with bi- and multilingual environment and my hypothesis is that not only bilingual adults but bilingual children as well can use code-switching as a great communicative strategy. The first chapter deals with the general introduction of bilingualism, its types and stages and classification of bilingual acquisition in children. Then, code-switching is defined, its types are included, too. In the next chapter other similar language contact phenomena, borrowing and code-mixing, are distinguished from code-switching. I also discuss the difference between younger and older children in relation to code-switching, the chapter also shows their linguistically more sophisticated behavior and the changing patterns of code-switching as the children grow older. Afterwards, I continue with the main part of my thesis dealing with the thirteen purposes Baker and García (1993) list in their Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. All the purposes mentioned are found in bilinguals in general and my aim is to consider, whether all of them apply to children or to adults only. In addition, a list of other purposes found in various studies on code-switching follows. In the eighth chapter I deal with attitudes towards code-switching, from the society’s point of view compared to the perception of bilinguals themselves. Finally, I summarize my findings which show that code-switching in bilingual children is a sign of the communicative competence and not of lack of language proficiency. Besides, there are numerous ways a bilingual child can use code-switching as a communicative strategy to gain his or her goals. The work is complemented with a list of resources that have been used in writing my thesis.

5

2. Bilingualism Defined There are basically two approaches to the term “bilingualism” I would like to mention. The first, maximalist one, by Bloomfield (1933: 55) describes bilingualism as “the native-like control of two or more languages.” On one hand, the definition is ambiguous in terms of what exactly is meant by “control” and who forms the “native” reference group. On the other hand, the approach describes an ideal, balanced bilingual, the requirements on whom in terms of language proficiency are unrealistic. “If we examine the experience of bilinguals around us, we quickly realize that bilinguals do not, and cannot, function like two monolinguals” (Chin, Wigglesworth 2007: 5). Several other researchers support the other, minimalist, approach. Among them Diebold (1964) with his concept of incipient bilingualism. This term include people with minimal competence in a second language into the group of bilinguals, e.g. tourists with a few phrases. Similarly, Mackey (1962: 52) defined bilingualism as “the ability to use more than one language” and Weinrich (1968) as “the practice of alternately using two languages.” “As is evident, each definition represents a position at different ends of the proficiency continuum even though, in reality, most bilinguals probably fall somewhere in the middle of this continuum” (Chin, Wigglesworth 2007: 3). As they use their two languages for different purposes and in different contexts, their degree of competence in both languages differs greatly from individual to individual (Baker, García 1993; Chin, Wigglesworth 2007: 5). Furthermore, Macnamara (1969) emphasized the need to discuss the degree of bilingualism as a degree of competence in sub-components (macro skills): speaking, writing, reading and listening. Here, “the competence in bilingualism is seen as a continuum with individuals showing varying degrees of competence in each of the macro skills” (Chin, Wigglesworth 2007: 6). 2.1 Types of Bilingualism Weinrich (1968) categorises bilingualism in terms of the way in which the concepts of language thought to be encoded in the individual’s brain. He believed that these differences resulted from the way in which the languages had been learned. Here are the categories, as Romaine (1995: 78–79) describes them: 1. coordinate bilingualism = two sets of meanings, two linguistic systems (e.g. a person with L1 English and L2 French learned later at school)

6

The person learns the languages in separate environments. The words of the two languages are kept separate with each word having its own specific meaning, which should lead to development and maintenance of two independent lanugages. 2.sub-coordinate bilingualism = primary set of meanings and another linguistic system attached to them In this sub-type of coordinate bilingualism bilinguals interpret words of their weaker language through the words of the stronger language. 3.compound bilingualism = one set of meanings and two linguistic systems attached to them The person learns the two languages in the same context simultaneously, so that a single concept would have two different verbal labels attached to it. In this case the languages are interdependent. Harding and Riley (2003: 42–45) mention another kind of classification, according to the age of acquisition. 1. Infant bilingualism is a simultaneous acquisition of two languages, when the child proceeds from not speaking at all to speaking two languages. 2. Child bilingualism is a successive acquisition of two or more languages. (first one language, then another) 3. Later bilingualism, often associated with non-native accent, is present in adolescents after puberty or adults not in their teens anymore. In a similar vain to Harding and Riley (2003), Lightbown and Spada (2006) refer to children who learn more than one language from earliest childhood as “simultaneous bilinguals,” whereas those who learn another language later may be called “sequential bilinguals.” In addition, to the acquisition of two (or more) languages simultaneously from early on – before 3 years of age – the term “bilingual first language acquisition” is restricted (McLaughlin 1984: 73). Most of the children I use as examples in my thesis belong to this category.

7

2.2 Types of Bilingual Acquisition in Childhood (Romaine 1995: 183–185) In the list below the types of bilingual acquisition in childhood are collected. 1.One Person – One Language 2.Non-dominant Home Language/ One Language – One Environment 3.Non-dominant Home Language without Community Support 4.Double Non-dominant Home Language without Community Support 5.Non-native Parents 6.Mixed Languages 2.3 Stages of Bilingual Acquisition (Baker 1949: 79–79) A bilingual child proceeds through three stages when becoming bilingual. Stage 1: Amalgamation (app. 0 – 3 years of age) The child has only one lexical system which includes words from both languages, therefore the two languages are mixed when talking, as there is no separation between them. However, such mixing is only temporary. Stage 2: Differentiation (after 2 years of age) The child distinguishes two different lexicons but applies the same syntactic rules to each language. When applying the One Parent – One Language system, the child will increasingly use a different language to each parent. However, there will be some mixing of languages as the child will not have equivalents for all words. Stage 3: Separation (after 3 years of age (or earlier) and throughout life) Finally, the child has two separate linguistic codes, differentiated in both lexicon and in syntax and the child is aware of which language to speak to which person. There are several factors which influence the age of moving from one stage to another (Baker 1949): 1. amount of separation a child experiences in listening to the two languages (by people and context) 2. the balance of the two languages in the child’s life 3. the quantity of language experience in both languages 4. the quality of language experience 5. parents’ acceptance (or not) of mixing the two languages 6. the experience of mixing in the community.

8

3. Code-switching (CS) Defined CS is defined in various ways by numerous researchers. In general, it is “the most common, unremarkable and distinctive feature of bilingual behaviour” (Wei, Martin 2009: 117). So it is a natural and frequent phenomenon tightly connected to the bilingual environment. According to Poplack (1979: 7), CS is “the alternation of two languages within a single discourse, sentence or constituent.” Gumperz (1973) also refers to the alternate use of two or more lanuages in the same utterance or conversation. Code is here understood as a single language, but as Romaine (1995: 121) puts it, it could refer “not only to different languages, but also to varieties of the same language as well as styles within a language.” Mayer-Scotton (1977: 5) agrees as she states that CS “may be anything from genetically unrelated languages to two styles of the same language.” Other researchers emphasize the pragmatic function when defining CS as “an active, creative process of incorporating material from both of a bilingual’s languages into communicative acts” (Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982: 115). Bilinguals are often unaware that they code-switch and they even deny that they do. But at certain points in a discourse CS can become a conscious strategy for achieving specific goals (Nwoye 1993: 366). As far as my thesis is concerned, I will use the term code as referring to a single language. 3.1 Types of CS 3.1.1. Situational vs. Metaphorical

There are several categorizations of CS types. Gumperz (1982) distinguishes two kinds: situational and metaphorical CS. Situational CS occurs when the languages used change due to extra-linguistic reasons like changes in the situation, interlocutors, type of activity undertaken, etc. Metaphorical CS is motivated by a change of topic in the ongoing discourse. Interestingly, “some topics may be discussed in either code, but the choices of code adds a distinct flavor to what is said about the topic. The choice encodes certain social values” (Nomura 2003: 105). 3.1.2. Participant-related vs. Discourse-related

Auer (1984) differentiates between participant-related and discourse-related CS. The former is related to the speaker’s (in)competence and is hearer-oriented. “It is

9

motivated by a need to negotiate the proper language for the interaction – ideally, one that is both socially adequate and accommodates all parties’ language competences and preferences” (Shin, Milroy 2000: 370). The latter is related to the construction of the interactive activity as it contributes to the provision of meaning to the utterances. This occurs, for example, “when there is a shift in the thematic orientation, when a new interlocutor is given the floor, when a new voice is introduced in the speaker’s utterances, when a joke is incorporated” (Arthur 1996). Participant-related CS relates to people acquiring a second language who prefer to: (a) fall back on the language they better command in order to avoid mistakes or misunderstandings or simply for economy of language use, (b) use a given language due to institutional constraints or attitudinal reasons or (c) choose their interlocutor’s preferred language with the aim of facilitating the comprehension and production process during the interaction (Nussbaum 1990). 3.1.3. Intrasentential, Intersentential, Tag-switching

According to Poplack (1979), the following types of CS can be identified: tag-switching, inter- and intra-sentential switching. Inter-sentential switching involves a switch at a clause or sentence boundary, where each clause or sentence is in one language or another. It may also occur between speakers’ turns. Since major portions of the utterance must conform to the rules of both languages, inter-sentential switching requires greater fluency in both languages than tag-switching (Romaine 1995: 122–123). The name of the article by Poplack (1979) itself is an example of inter-sentential switching: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y terminó in español.” (Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English and finish it in Spanish.) Intra-sentential switching is ascribed to the most fluent bilinguals. “Here switching of different types occurs within the clause or sentence boundary” (Romaine 1995: 123). Mixing within word boundaries is included in this type as well. Romaine (1995: 123) provides an example in Tok Pisin/English: “What’s so funny? Come, be good. Otherwise, yu bai go long kot.” (What’s so funny? Come, be good. Otherwise, you’ll go to court.) Tag-switching involves the insertion of a tag in one language into an utterance

10

which is otherwise entirely in the other language, e.g. you know, I mean. They may be easily inserted at a number of points in a monolingual utterance without violating syntactic rules (Romaine 1995: 122). All the tag-switches can be produced in L2 with only minimal knowledge of the grammar of that language (Poplack 1979: 56). An example from Nwoye (1993: 369) Igbo/English: “You want to spoil my name, okwa ya?” Although okwa ya means “is it?”, with the tag formation it is understood as negative “isn’t it?” (Nwoye 1993: 369). 3.1.4. Triggering

Birgit Stolt (1964) identified certain “linguistically neutral” words, that is, words that could belong to either language, which caused the speaker to lose his or her “linguistic orientation” and continue his or her discourse in a different language from that in which he or she started. Clyne (1972: 24) lists five types of words which may act as trigger word: (a) lexical transfers (i.e words from one language used in the other but which are not normally considered part of the other, e.g. Frank’s (5) continued use of Panzerwagen (= armoured car) in his English) (Saunders 1988: 86) (b) proper nouns (e.g. Sydney, Adidas) (c) homophonous diamorphs (i.e. words having the same meaning and sounding the same or similar in both languages, e.g. German Glas and English glass) (d) loanwords (i.e. words originally belonging to only one of the languages but now also considered part of the other, e.g. Kindergarten) (e) compromise forms between the two lanuguages (i.e. forms which may arise in a bilingual’s speech which strictly speaking belong to neither lanugage but are close to the equivalent word in both (f) to Clyne’s list quoting a word or a phrase from the other language could be added: Frank (5) (showing his mother some German writing he has just done for his father): “Look what I wrote mum.” Mother: “Gee. Can you write Hund?” (Can you write dog?) Frank: “Ja.” (Yes.) (Saunders 1988: 86)

11

3.1.4.1 Types of Triggering according to Michael Clyne (1967: 84) Consequential triggering (following a trigger word) After having reached the trigger word, the speaker becomes momentarily disoriented and forgets which language he or she is speaking and continues in the other language. An example from Saunders (1988: 87): Thomas (4) (praising his mother’s home-made bread, to his father): “Der Ladenbrot ist nicht so gut wie Mamis bread, ah, Brot.” (The shop bread isn’t as good as Mummy’s bread, ah, bread.) Anticipational triggering (before a trigger word) When a speaker is thinking ahead to what he or she is about to say and when anticipating the occurence of a trigger word, he or she switches from one language to the other just before reaching the trigger word. Again, an example from Saunders (1988: 88): Frank (3) (talking to his father about a gift he has received from a family friend): “Das war nett of Jim.” (That was nice of Jim.) That kind of triggering can occur before a whole clause in the other language, too. Thomas (to mother, whom he would normally address in English, after searching high and low for one of his German books): “Kuck mal! Ich habe das Buch gefunden - “Onkel Pauls Laster.” (Look! I’ve found the book - “Uncle Paul’s Truck.”) (Saunders 1988: 88) Sandwich words ( words are “sandwiched” between two potential trigger words) This type of triggering is brought about by a combination of consequential and anticipational triggering. When a word or a phrase is put in between two potential trigger words, this word or phrase may be said in the language with which the trigger words are identified by the speaker at that moment. It is mostly the case of loanwords, proper nouns or a short quotations. Thomas: “Ich werde mir “Grange Hill” and “The Changes” ankucken.” (I’ll watch “Grange Hill” and “The Changes.”) (Saunders 1988: 88) Contextual triggering (triggering not because of a trigger word but because of the context of the situation) When the context of a certain activity or situation is closely associated with a particular 12

language, a switch may be made to that language. Frank (4): “Mum, can you speak lots of German?” Mother: “A fair bit. I speak a lot to Ilda’s mother.” Frank: “Why a lot?” Mother: “She doesn’t understand English. You’ve heard me speaking German to Ilda’s mother, haven’t you?” Frank: “Hm. And we play with Ilda.” Mother: “Hm. Do I speak good German then?” Frank: “Ja.” (Yes.) (Saunders 1988: 89)

13

4. CS, Borrowing and Code-mixing Distinguished In the literature on CS, a distinction between CS, code-mixing (CM) and borrowing is often made, because these language contact phenomena are very similar to one another. However, as Eastman (1992) puts it, these efforts “are doomed.” 4.1 Borrowing According to Grosjean (2010: 58–61), borrowing is “the integration of one language into another” in contrast with CS, the alternate use of two languages. Bilinguals bring their less activated language by borrowing a word or a short expression from that language and adapt it morphologically (and often phonologically) into the base language. This difference is illustrated below (Grosjean 2010: 58):

4.1.1. Loan word (nonce borrowing)

This is the most frequent type of borrowing, when both the form and the content of a word are borrowed. Nouns, followed by verbs and adjectives are the most borrowed ones. An example taken from French-English bilingual (Grosjean 2010: 59), where the English word “tie” has been integrated into the French sentence: “Maman, tu peux me tier /taie/ mes chaussures?” (Mummy, can you tie my shoes?) Although the phonological adaptation of borrowings is still discussed, e.g. whether they are fully adapted to the base language or keep some of their guestlanguage phonology, their morphological adaptation is much less discussed. For example, in the case of nouns, “they may be given a plural form and a gender when the borrowing language requires it, e.g. “la responsibility”’ (Grosjean 2010: 59). However, it is difficult to distinguish a one-word code-switch from a borrowing which does not require to be morphologically and phonologically adapted into the sentence.

14

4.1.2. Loanshift

This second type of borrowing occurs “when the speaker either takes a word in the base language and extends its meaning to correspond to that of a word in the other language, or rearranges words in the base language along a pattern provided by the other language and thus creates a new meaning” (Grosjean 2010: 59–60). Grosjean (2010: 60) provides an example of the first kind of loanshift. It would be the use of humoroso by Portuguese Americans to mean “humorous” although its original meaning in Portuguese is “capricious.” For the second type of loanshift, the rearranging of words (calques or loan translations), an example was found in Florida from Spanish speech of bilinguals who said tener buen tiempo (based on the English “to have a good time”) instead of using the Spanish “divertirse.” Both these types of spontaneous borrowing are to be distinguished from language borrowings or established loans. These occur “when one language takes over and adapts material from another language, and this material gets included in the borrowing language” (Grosjean 2010: 61). Hence, these words, although originally brought in by bilinguals, are now used by all speakers of the language, monolinguals including. For instance, poet, duke, music, companion are established loans from French. 4.2 Code-mixing (CM) When a bilingual speaker uses two languages in the same utterance or conversation and violates syntactic or pragmatic constraints on CS established by the language use of his bilingual community, he or she codemixes (Köppe, Meisel 1995: 277). Hamers and Blanc (2000: 270) claim that in CM, “there is necessarily a base language and it should be possible to distinguish in an utterance monolingual chunks in the base language which alternate with chunks calling upon the rules of both lanugages.” They illustrate it on the example of Chiac, a mixed French-English vernacular of New Brunswick. “Je vais back venir” is a French sentence consisting of a French phrasal verb “je vais venir” and an English morpheme “back” which is prepositioned to the verb according to a French rule unacceptable to English. They further point out that “unlike borrowing, which is generally limited to lexical units which may be better or less well assimilated, CM transfers elements of all linguistic

15

levels and units ranging from a lexical item to a sentence, so that it is not always easy to distinguish CM from CS” (Hamers, Blanc 2000: 270). However, researchers use various terminology which might be confusing when trying to distinguish CS, CM and borrowing. Some of them (e.g. Pfaff, 1979) use CM as a cover term for CS (and for borrowing), while others refer to CM as intra-sentential switching and to CS as inter-sentential switching (Nwoye 1993: 365–366). By a certain age, bilingual children acquire the ability to code-switch for the full range of functions used by adults. Until that stage, the mixture which they produce is related to their linguistic development and to the degree of their awareness of the two languages. It has therefore been argued that it is more appropriate to use a different term, “mixing” for example for young children’s alternations (Meisel 1989).

16

5. Older vs. Younger Children in Relation to CS 5.1. Differenciating the Two Languages Genesee, Boivin & Nicoladis (1996) found out that French-English bilinguals as young as 2 years of age develop the ability to use and adjust each of their languages differentially and appropriately with parents and an unfamiliar interlocutor as part of their communicative competence. Other researchers’ findings also support that claim. Lanza (1992) notices that children as young as the age of two can, and do, code-switch. In her study a spontaneous speech of a girl in interactions with her parents were recorded monthly from the age of 2,0 to 2,7. The research revealed that she did differentiate the use of her language in contextually sensitive ways, hence that she could code-switch (Lanza 1992). Tracy (2000) also came with the same results. “While we cannot rule out the possibility that, depending on the similarities and differences of the languages involved, children start out with a fused system, there is sufficient evidence available to show that bilingual children (implicitly) know that they are acquiring two languages by the time they are two years old.” However, mixing the two languages is to be expected in the early stages of bilingual development, when children seem to employ their both languages as just one language system. After this, the separation of the two languages follows as a gradual process (Baker 1996: 78). 5.2. Linguistic Sophistication and CS There is a change to be observed in the CS patterns of the bilingual children as they grow older. Their metalinguistic capacities mature and so does their linguistic competence (Gardner-Chloros 2009: 145). Their exposure to different social and linguistic experiences increases, and these experiences affect and enlarge their knowledge and ability to use their different languages and to employ CS for sociolinguistic purposes (Reyes 2004: 80). In her study on immigrant Spanish-speaking children, Reyes (2004) observed that older children “become more sensitive to their peers’ linguistic abilities, consequently becoming better at CS to accomodate their linguistic demands.” The decisive factor was the length of exposure to the L2, which is, logically, by older children longer. As far as the type of CS used by younger children is concerned, the research of Peynircioglu and Durgunoglu (2002) is of importance. They investigated code-switched 17

discourse in Spanish–English preschool bilingual children. As switching between sentences is easier for non-balanced bilinguals because the learners do not need to judge the compatibility of the two languages, there was more inter- than intrasentential CS found. Although in general, the most common switch occurs for a single noun (Malakoff, Hakuta 1991). 5.3. More Purposes of CS in Older Children Younger children’s CS behavior seems to reflect simple adaptation to the linguistic abilities of their conversational partners or the use of the more readily available lexical item. The purposes of CS like emphasizing a point, demonstrating one’s ethnic identity or group solidarity, or excluding individuals from the conversation develop gradually in older children (Hammink 2000). This kind of variation in the type of CS observed across age groups suggests a developmental trait. Genesee (1984) noticed that younger children may recognize the psychological and social purposes of CS, even though they may not use it for those purposes themselves. The recognition of the use of CS to mark ingroup/outgroup and sociocultural status was evident in adolescents (11 years and older) but less so in younger children, who reacted to more immediate aspects of the social interaction, such as the language actually being spoken.

18

6. Purposes of Code-switching (CS) According to Baker and García (1993), there are 13 basic types of purposes CS may be used for. They vary according to the interlocutors, the context and the topic of the conversation. The list of the functions considers generally all bi- and multilinguals. In my thesis I focus on the question whether the children’s use of CS serves all the purposes mentioned in general. 6.1. Emphasis CS could be used to emphasize certain word or a particular point in the conversation, one wants to underline. I would illustrate it with an example from Cheng’s (2003: 69) study dealing with children in Malaysia, who speak the variety of English – Malaysian English. Throughout the discourse English with a L1 particle lah or loh is widely used. Among other activities, the children were asked to tell their favorite story. Researcher: “Then will the children die?” Child (6): “No lah. Just hurt their here (points to his forehead) only.” The boy tells his favorite story and comes to the point about God’s punishment of naughty children. The researcher asks whether the children in the story will die and the answer is strongly negated by the child. “Hence the lah following “no” as in nolah is emphasis of the fact that God’s punishment does not lead to death, just injury” (Cheng 2003). 6.2. Substitution To substitute a word in one language which is not known to the bilingual in the other language is a common strategy for adults as well as for children. Some critics of CS mistakenly believe that because of this category CS indicates only a language incompetence in one of the languages used by the speaker. The switches of this kind are used to fill in a lexical gap that arises due to a momentary loss of words. Example: “Give me some piña o deso - o cómo se llama.” (Give me some pineapple or what’s-its-name.) in Spanish: “Dame un poco de piña o de eso – o cómo se llame.” (Zentella 1997: 98)

19

6.3. Introduction of Certain Topics As Baker and García (1993) point out, when introducing certain topics related to experiences in a second language, e.g. school subjects like mathematics, that particular language might be used. This is supported by Kim (2006: 55), as she states that “topical switching became a fairly well established procedure when discussing […] school topics, including science, mathematics and the like.” The preference of one language for a certain topic may be due to the differential competences in the two codes, as “one code is found to be particularly suited for the discussion of specific topics which the other code is deemed inappropriate for” (Nwoye 1993: 382). 6.4. No Equivalence Words, phrases and concepts are not always expressed in the same way or do not have their equivalents in the other lanugage. Therefore, in order to convey the meaning of one’s thought, CS may be used . Harding and Riley (2003: 64) mention examples of this CS type: Finn (14): “We’ve got a new maths teacher, but he isn’t titulaire...our real maths teacher’s on a stage.” (Approximate translations: titulaire – a teacher who has an established post, stage – an in-service training course) Another example taken from Saunders (1988: 66): Frank (9): “Tom, guess what we’re doing in Werken now.” The subject Werken did not correspond to any subject at Frank’s school in Australia (it included woodwork and various kinds of craft work), therefore the used the German expression for it. 6.5. Reinforcement of a Request Not only when an adult commands a child or another adult to do something, but also a child requesting something from an adult or from another child, a sibling most probably, tends to use CS to get the person fulfil the request. Again, an example from Saunders (1988: 65) illustrates this strategy: Thomas (6): “Put the arrow back!” 20

Frank (4): “No!” Thomas: “Steck den Pfeil zurück!” (Put the arrow back!) From this example it is clear that Thomas uses CS to underline his own authority to make his younger brother Frank obey his command. Similarly, Reyes (2004) mentiones a non-command insistence, when child’s persistence in a specfic idea is represented by CS, and as well as by Saunders (1988), represented by repeating the same utterance in both languages. Child: “a ver...let me see” (let me see...let me see) (Reyes 2004: 85). 6.6. Clarification of a Point – Repetition Similarly to the previous point concerning reinforcement of a request, in order to make the contents understandable or clear, a switch could be done, repeating the previous utterance in the other language. Reyes (2004: 92) demonstrates this process in her study dealing with immigrant Spanish-speaking children in Oakland. One of the tasks was to participate in a science activity. Because of the fact that it was a cognitive task, the children were allowed to use their mother tongue, Spanish. Araceli: [reading] “¿Qué es lo que los imanes hacen al compass *brújula brújula?” (What do magnets do to a compass compass?) Mari: “Um…” Araceli: “Compás?” (Compass?) Mari: “Estás segura?” (Are you sure?) Araceli: “(You) know.” Mari: “~Um-huh.” Araceli: “Do you understand one?” Mari: “Can you use it?” Araceli: “Entiendes número uno?” (Do you understand number one?) Mari: “Huh?” Araceli: “Le entiendes?” (Do you get it?) Mari: “Yeah, it goes north.” The example above shows the discussion between two fifth-grade girls who thanks to

21

CS clarify the points, checking the understanding of each other, so that they accomplish the task given. In order to emphasize the importance and frequency of CS as a means of clarification, I would like to note that in Zentella’s research (1997: 95) on conversational strategy of children, clarification-emphasis strategies accounted for 33% of the switches. 6.7. Social Distance – Solidarity The notion of social distance is closely related to solidarity, common identity, elevating one’s own status or creating a distance. “Children are also extremely skilful in using switching as a marker of “solidarity” with the person they are talking to, that is, using the change of language to reinforce the “closeness” of the relationship” (Harding, Riley 2003: 65). Leopold (1978) exemplifies this on Hildegard, his German-English bilingual daughter, who at the age of 5 considerably intensified the emotional content of what she was saying to coax her father into staying with her when she was in bed with chicken-pox. Hildegard: “Papa, wenn du das Licht ausmachst, then I’ll be so lonely.” (Daddy, if you put out the light...) 6.8. Quoting When relating to a conversation held previously, bilinguals, including children, tend to report the conversation in the language used. Also “for quotations in indirect speech children usually use the language they habitually use with he person they are speaking to” (Harding, Riley 2003: 65). Frank (9) (telling his brother about a film he has seen at school): “...And, well, I saw a bus in India, and they had the windows open and they were all – and he said (i.e. the German commentator of the film), “Auf diesem Bus gibt es dreißig Leute.” (On this bus there are thirty people.) ...and it was only a little bus, Tom...” (Saunders 1988: 60). Also during monologues the children alternate the languages when they address a person, real or imaginary, who is associated with a particular language. In Saunders’ family which kept the One Parent – One Language strategy, he as the father was 22

addressed in German (Saunders 1988: 70). Katrina (2) (playing with her doll Anna): “Anna’s sick. Where’s my telephone? (Finds her toy telephone.) I ringing up Daddy. (Speaks on phone). Guten Tag, Bert. (in a sad voice) Anna ist krank – und weinen.” (Hallo, Dad. Anna’s sick – and cry.) As Saunders (1988: 92–95) points out, there are three factors which motivate children to quote someone in the language the utterance was made in: First, it is a feeling of incongruity at quoting someone in a language he or she does not speak. And if the child translates the quote, he or she often uses an explanatory remark about it. Thomas (6) (talking to his father about Helen, his best friend at school at this stage): “Bert, weißt du, Helen wird sehr streng, wenn Leute ihre Dinge kaputt machen.” (Dad, you know, Helen gets very stern if people break her things.) Father: “Kein Wunder. Was sagt sie?” (No wonder. What does she say?) Thomas: “Sie sagt: “Du musst das flicken!” Aber auf englisch. Sie sagt das sehr laut.” (She says, “You’ll have to fix that!” But in English. She says that really loudly.) Second, it is the desire to capture the flavour of the original utterance that brings children to quote in the original language. Frank (8) (telling his mother about problems with a boy at school in Hamburg): “He says, “Du blöder Arsch.” (“You stupid bastard.”) and that Mum, but I just thump him...” Here, the insult is given in its original form probably both to preserve its precise nuance and to avoid the problem of trying to find an English equivalent with the same connotations. Third, quoting is used in order to extricate oneself from a vocabulary difficulty.

23

Father (to Frank (4)): “Frag mal Mutti, wie viel Uhr es ist.” (Ask Mum what the time is.) Frank (runs to his mother): “What’s the time, Mum?” Mother: “A quarter to three.” Frank (returning to his father): “Mutti hat, “It’s a quarter to three.” gesagt.” (Mum said...) Father: “Oh gut, danke.” (Oh good, thanks.) Frank (going back to his mother): “Does Daddy have to get Thomas?” Mother: “Yes. Tell him it’s just about time for him to get him.” Frank (again to father): “Mutti hat gesagt, du musst Thomas jetzt abholen. Ich komme mit.” (Mum said you have to get Thomas now. I’m coming with you.) Frank quoted the first message, because it was beyond his conceptual development at the age of 4 to translate it. However, the second message was easily translated. Another solution when an expression is missing is to quote what would somebody else, or even oneself, say in the other language, as the example with a colloquial term shows: Thomas (5) (telling his father about a boy at school): “Und, Bert, er will alles zuerst machen. Er ist, ah, ah – auf englisch würde ich sagen (And, Dad, he wants to do everything first. He’s, ah, ah – in English I’d say): “He’s a real greedy-guts”.’ This is especially the case of telling untranslatable jokes, puns, songs and the like (Saunders 1988: 95; Fantini 1978). As Fantini (1978) observed, “roleplays were usually performed in the language of the person being portrayed, whether a playmate, a teacher, or Bionic Woman (TV character).” Ryes (2004: 84) also provides an example of Spanish-English speaking children who were quoting in a roleplay in her study: A: “Y luego le hace si [robot voice] I’m hungry.” (And then he says yes...) Besides, as Wolff (1999: 15) observes in the study of pre-school child 24

multilingualism in Africa, “within a narrative discourse, the direct speech is marked simply by changing the language; thus there is no need to use a quotative verb.” The child in the example below uses two languages, Nubi and Ganda. When quoting the utterance of the goat in the story, a code-switch from Nubi to Ganda is used to indicate direct speech. Child: “...dukuru galamoyo ja. (in Nubi: ...and then the goat came.) bana bange muggulawo (in Ganda: my children, open up) dukuru umon fata...” (in Nubi: then they opened...) In addition, “the process involved is practically the same as in games played by monolingual children where each imaginary character is given an appropriate tone of voice, accent, etc. A bilingual child simply extends this to have characters speaking more than one language” (Saunders 1988). This was also proven by Saunders’ son Thomas, aged 7, who was playing with toy soldiers – American, Australian, German and Japanese troops. All these groups were given a different language according to their nationality (accent in the case of American and Australian troops) and even short utterances in invented Japanese occured. At a later point he adds that “toys such as dolls, teddy bears, etc. are also normally considered by the children to speak the same language as their owners.” So the children of Saunders, all English-German bilinguals, perceived their toys as bilinguals, too. 6.9. Communicating Common Identity “Code-switching is a conversational strategy used to establish, cross or destroy group boundaries; to create, evoke or change interpersonal relations with their rights and obligations” (Gal 1988: 247). In an interaction between two speakers who share a language or languages, CS may occur because they want to make their shared common identity manifest (Nwoye 1993: 371). Chung (2006) provides more examples of CS expressing common identity. All members of the Korean-English bilingual family in the study use Korean words when addressing one another. “The language choice of family members bonds their cultural identity across generations regardless of their comfortable-language status or different degree of acculturation to the other culture(s) they have been exposed to” (Chung 2006: 304).

25

Father: “Guman hago, u-seo jagoura.” (Stop arguing with each other, and go to bed.) Daughter: “He broke my other chapsticks before.” Father: “I told you. Stop and go to bed. Pulsu nine-thirty-da. [“da” is a word denoting statement ending in Korean]. (It’s already 9:30 p.m.) Midum, say good night to Nuna (Sister).” Son: “Good night, Nuna (Sister). Good night, A-p ah” (Daddy). Father: “I love you, Midum. Hug-do haeyaji.”(Give me a hug.) Father: “[…] (hugging his daughter) I love you, Sarang [the daughter’s Korean name].” (Chung 2006: 301–302) In addition, Midum, the English-dominant son, speaks Korean when addressing his older sister with a kinship term Nuna, because in a Korean family a hierarchy and order are of importance. Interestingly, researchers found out that CS may be used to index two identities the speakers share, as it was in the Puerto Rican community in New York. They simultaneously recognized both their identities – switching between English and Spanish, that is, being an American and a Puerto Rican (Myers-Scotton 1993). 6.10. Excluding People from a Conversation As mentioned before, the resources of CS may be used to establish group boundaries (Gal 1988: 247) and “isolate and exclude others who do not share the same codes” (Nwoye 1993). Here, it is necessary to mention the term “we-code” by Gumperz (1982). It is associated with a minority language and in-group informal activities, solidarity and intimacy. On the other hand, “they-code” as a majority language is viewed as associated with formal, less personal, out-group relations, authority and distance. Usually, “wecode” serves to exclude others from a conversation. Sebba and Wootton (1998: 264) argue that both languages spoken may serve as a “we-code.” They studied the linguistic behavior of young Carribean Londoners who spoke London English and London Jamaican and found out that the both languages have some of the characteristics of “we-codes.” “London Jamaican is a “we-code” because it excludes outsiders (particularly white people) and its province is the family and peer group, especially during informal conversations. But London English is also a “we-code”: it is used among family and peers in the most intimate discussions and is the

26

preferred code for use most of the time for most of the speakers in the study.” Moreover, the “we-code” may be CS itself. “The mixed language is at the disposal of the young bilinguals as a means to establish borders of identity, in opposition not only to all adults [...] but also to the young monolinguals”(Jørgensen 1998: 242). As it is often a matter of politeness, the bilinguals – children as well, switch in the other language so that the utterance will not be understood by others. An example from Saunders (1988: 84): Thomas (10) (seeing a woman load about twenty packets of cigarettes into her supermarket trolley in Germany): “Kuck mal, Bert! (Look at that, Dad!) She’s got heaps of cigarettes. Siehst du?” (See?) Rontu (2007) mentiones this purpose in her study on Finnish–Swedish bilingual family, where the mother speaks Finnish to her daughters and the father Swedish. The two sisters’ mutual language is Swedish. “A switch to the noncontext language functions as a way [...] to break off the conversation between the other sibling and the mother” (Rontu 2007: 337). However, exclusion of people from a conversation by means of CS does not always indicate a negative attitude towards the people concerned. Emily (17) is at table with her German friend Anne, and her parents. The common language is French. Mother (to Anne): “Tu reprendras un peu de ca?” (Would you like some more?) Emily (to her mother in Swedish): “Jag tror inte att hon tycker om det.” (I don’t think she likes it.) Here, Emily was obviously trying to help her friend without embarrassing her (Harding, Riley 2003: 65). 6.11. Including People in a Conversation In addition to excluding people from a conversation, CS also serves the opposite function – including them or interjecting into a conversation. Rontu (2007: 349) proves this in her study. “The girl’s switch to Swedish is a way to not only arouse the mother’s

27

attention but also include the sister in the conversation.” The kind of situation when a child wants to include somebody into the conversation arises when the child addresses a parent plus monolingual(s). CS is then often involved, mostly if the arrangement in the family follows the patter of One Parent – One Language. As Saunders (1988) describes the example of his own family, his children code-switched when talking to him in German and a monolingual Englishspeaker at the same time. There are basically four options how the child can handle such a situation (Saunders 1988: 60): First, making short remarks to the parent indicating that he or she is included in the discussion: Frank (11) (taking part in a conversation with his father and two monolingual relatives): “The day that we came back one year, um, it was 42 (degrees), nicht wahr, Bert?” (wasn’t it, Dad?) Second, the child could address the parent and the monolingual afterwards, conveying the same information in the other language. Katrina (5) (seeing dog drinking quickly from a bowl, to grandmother): “Jock must be thirsty!” Grandmother: “I’ll say.” Katrina (to her father, sitting next to the grandmother): “Jock hat Durst, Bert.” (Jock’s thirsty, Dad.) Then, the monolingual could be addressed first and the parent in the other language afterwards. The last option, a one not so often used, is to address the parent and leave it to him or her to make any explanations necessary to the monolingual(s) present. Frank (7) (watching his uncle skin a rabbit): “Ich mag die Eingeweide nicht, Bert.” (I don’t like the innards, Dad.) (Dad laughs at Frank’s facial expression.) Uncle: “Eh?” Father: “Frank said he doesn’t like the guts.”

28

6.12. Ease Tension and Inject Humor This kind of CS may indicate a change of mood or a change in mode of the interaction. Kabuto (2010: 143) observes this kind of behavior in her daughter Emma: Emma: “Sore-tte nani?” (What is that?) Jay (father): “Yatte mina.” (Try it.) Emma (laughingly): “Okay mister.” Similarly, in the Saunders’ family, German words were deliberately inserted into his son’s English when talking to his mother, who was usually addressed in English only. It was his way of expressing humor, an amusing way of teasing his mother (Saunders 1988: 77). Frank (3) (to mother): “This is my bottle of Milch. (milk) (He laughs with obvious amusement. His mother smiles, indicating that she knows that he is using a German word, but makes no comment.) This is my Milch.” Mother: “Is that an English word?” Frank (grinning): “Deutsch.” (German.) If there is for example an English monolingual and the child uses a German word, it could be a means of teasing the monolingual, but it happens just rarely (Saunders 1988). 6.13. Change of Attitude Baker and García (1993: 89) state that in order to indicate a change of attitude during a conversation, CS may be used. “For example, greetings may be expressed in the home, minority language. But when one person asks to borrow money or asks a favor of the other, the moneylender may change to the majority language.” This includes a temporary change of relationship, such as greetings in the native language and business in the majority language. As far as children and teenagers are concerned, this kind of CS may be used to maintain the appropriateness of context (Affirin, Rafik-Galea 2009: 13). “It is the practice in Islam that when someone greets a person that it is compulsory for that person to give his or her reply. It goes without saying that the Arabic greeting

29

“assalamualaikum” should be replied with “waalaikumsalam”.’ In their study a trainer switched her language of interaction to Arabic in her reply to the trainee’s Arabic greeting as it was the most appropriate thing to do. “A Muslim will not answer it in another language as it will not be appropriate and seem absurd” (Affirin, Rafik-Galea 2009: 14).

30

7. Other Purposes There are also other purposes the researchers found that Baker and García (1993) do not mention in their Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. I would like to add these to the previous list and discuss them further. 7.1. Topic Change First, when children change the topic of the conversation, CS might occur. Saunders (1998: 68) proves this by an example of his children’s speech: Frank (8): “Here’s your cornflakes. (Short pause) Wir gehen heute zu Timo” (We’re going to Timo’s today.) Katrina (3): “Ja.” (Yes.) Frank: “Wirst du mit ihm spielen?” (Are you going to play with him?) Katrina: “Ja. Und du auch?” (Yes. And you, too?) Frank: “Ja. (Slight pause.) Look at this Katrina... ” (Conversation continues for a while in English.) Similarly, Kabuto (2010: 143) observes this pattern of behavior, too. Her husband Jay is talking to their daughter Emma about a picture of a kimono in one of Emma’s books. Jay: “Kore kimono nan da kedo. Onsen de kiru karui yatu wa yukata tee yu on.” (This is a kimono, but the lightweight one that we wear at the public bath is called a yukata.) Emma: “Wait. I want to show Ricky the airplane.” Here, the difference of the following topic is expressed by CS, as the children in both examples attempt to change and/or negotiate the topic of the conversation. Reyes (2004: 93) uses a term “topic shift” when speaking about this particular purpose of CS. She found out in her study that “CS to mark topic shift seems to be a type of code switch that is learned at an earlier age than other, more sophisticated types of code switches.” Then she argues that topic shift seems to be particularly important in social talk, because children spent a lot of time talking about social events and teasing each other (Reyes 2004: 89). Although the topic shift was particularly involved in the

31

social talk, it occured in the science activity context as well. She also provides the example below. The 10-years old boys switch from Spanish to English when talking about Power Rangers, popular characters in a TV show. Then they switch back to Spanish, as they change the topic by refering to the researchers as “immigration officers.” Fernando: “Ira lo que voy hacer.” (Look what I’m going to do.) (child is playing with Play-Doh) Cesar: “Que son? Son Power Rangers? (What are they? Are they Power Rangers?) go go Power Ranger… man, is this the activity? Es la migra blood.” (They are the immigration) (child is referring to researchers as immigration officers) (both children laugh) 7.2. Addressing Oneself A switch can be a way to disengage oneself from the conversation. The child starts a monologue on his or her own and steps aside from the conversation (Rontu 2007: 354). In this manner he or she demonstrates either his or her either language dominance or language preference. The following example by Saunders (1988: 71) illustrates this kind of behavior. Thomas (to his father): “Ich habe diese Räder abgenommen.” (I’ve taken these wheels off.) Father: “Warum?” (Why?) Thomas (engrossed in his game, does not seem to hear the question, and talks to himself): “I try – they sort of push in and out.” Father: “Was?” (What?) Thomas (suddenly realizing that the father is there): “Sie kommenn raus... ” (They come out...) When Saunders’ children were talking to themselves in English, and then were teasingly asked by their father in German “Was?” (What?), they used to respond in the following way:

32

Katrina (5): “Bert! Ich spreche mit mir!” (Dad! I’m talking to myself!) (Saunders 1988: 71) Similarly, Dolitsky (2000) claims in her study of a 5-year-old French-English bilingual that he switches from English, the code he uses when speaking to his mother, to French when left alone and talking to himself. It shows clearly that the child alternates the languages according to his or her lanugage preference. “The child alone, speaking to himself isolated from immediate social constraints and influence from other speakers is not submitted to the expectations and judgements of interlocutors” (Dolitsky 2000: 1401). Therefore he or she is free to pick up his or her own preferred language. 7.3. Arousing Attention As “in a dyadic situation the child’s access to parental attention is unlimited” (Rontu 2007: 338), there is no need for the child to code-switch to get the attention desired. However, in a triadic situation the linguistic dominance of the older sibling and a natural competition between the siblings can easily lead to a competition between the siblings for parental attention (Mannle, Barton, & Tomasello, 1991). In the example below from Rontu (2007: 347), a conversation of Finnish – Swedish bilingual family is recorded. The daughters switch to the noncontext language – Swedish – in order to attract the mother’s attention. Finnish is marked in italics, Swedish in capitals. Josefin (3): “Nyt se on... nyt.” (Now it’s...now.) VAR TRYCKER MAN MAMMA? (Where do you push mummy?) Mother: “Ei.” (No.) “Ei sit sit sit ei saa [painaa].” (You’re you’re you’re not allowed to push it.) Josefin: “[VAR]?” (Where?) Mother: “Sit ei saa painaa Josefin.” (You’re not allowed to push it Josefin.) Vera (5): “MAMMA HÖR PÅ DEN NÄR JA SÄGER.” (Mummy listen to what I say.) ((Josefin is humming in the background.)) Mother: “No.” (Yes.) “Onks toi uus?” (Is that new?) Vera: “Ei.” (No.) “Etsä muista ku mä sain sen Macdonaltsista?”

33

(Don’t you remember when I got it at MacDonalds?) Mother: “Niinkö?” (Really?) Vera: “Joo.” (Yes.) “Vera who does not want to lose the mother’s attention she has been enjoying for several turns earlier takes the next turn. Vera’s codeswitching seems to be a way of attracting the mother’s attention in the same way Josefin has just done” (Rontu 2007: 348). 7.4. Expressing Opposition A differing opinion about what the other sibling and the parent is doing or talking may be evinced by switch of the code (Rontu 2007: 353). In the following excerpt the girls have a different opinion about the play with the bricks and they express it directly to the mother and indirectly to one another. Again, Finnish is marked in italics, Swedish in capitals. Vera (4): “HEJ (.) JOSEFIN HAR ALLA PLATTOR.” (Hey Josefin has all the plates.) “JA HAR INGEN PLATTA.” (I don’t have any.) Mother: “Niinkö?” (Really?) “No hhh tuossa.” (Well there.) “Ole hyvä.” (There you are.) Josefin (3): “JA HAR BARA (.) SÅ HÄR MÅNGA.” (I’ve got only this many.) Mother: “Nii.” (Yes.) “Hhh kaks.” (Two.) “Rather than accounting for oppositional actions, delaying their occurrence, prefacing them with agreement tokens, or otherwise contextualizing them as dispreferred, children frequently organize their actions such that the oppositional features are unmitigated and openly displayed. Indeed, children systematically employ methods to highlight or even escalate social opposition” (Cromdal 2004: 37). Children make use of their bilingualism and express their oppositional opinions by alternating the languages. The example below by Cromdal (2004: 37–38) introduces us to a bilingual environment of an English-language school in one of the major cities in Sweden. The school’s language policy promoted the use of English for all activities, except from

34

Swedish lessons. However, conversations among children were often in both languages. The conversation between Magdalena, Cheryl and Ebba starts as a playful teasing and mocking and ends by a serious disaffiliation which is expressed by CS. Showing essays. (Cheryl and Ebba are flipping through piles of student essays. Cheryl is searching for Magdalena’s paper to expose it to the camera, just as Magdalena did with Cheryl’s a moment earlier.) Magdalena: “You know mine’s not in there...for your information.” Cheryl: “DET HÄR (heh) E MAGDALENAS HEEHE.” (This one (heh) is Magdalena’s heehe.) (raises essay high above the head) Magdalena: “Heh...e de inte...alls de.” (Heh...not at..all.) Cheryl: “De står Magdalena H.” (It says Magdalena H.) Magdalena: “A: men de e Magdalena...Hasselblad.” (Yeh well that’s Magdalena... Hasselblad.) Ebba: “Vi har ingen Hasselblad.” (We don’t have any Hasselblad.) Cheryl: “Det här e Magdalenas.”(extending essay toward camera) (This one is Magdalena’s.) Magdalena: “NO that...CHERRIE: sto- put it down now.” Ebba: “CHERRIE stop being so...silly babish.” Magdalena: “Den där e Cherries.” (points to an essay) (That one is Cherrie’s.) Ebba: “Men nu sluta...(flipping through the pile) vi får kolla.” (Well quit now...let’s see.) “Om den här e min (turns coversheet to Magdalena) ja:? Heheh.” (If this one is mine yes?) As Magdalena states that her essay is not among the other ones, Cheryl finds an essay, lifts it up and announces laughingly that it belongs to Magdalena. She denies this, then Cheryl points out that her friend’s name (Magdalena H.) is on the cover. Magdalena claims that the initial letter H stands for “Hasselblad,” which is not her name. Ebba points out that there is no one with that name in the class. Cheryl repeats her statement that the essay belongs to Magdalena and shows it to the camera. This last action is immediately opposed by Magdalena, who is no longer denying authorship but simply demands that Cheryl put the essay down. Her request is produced in English, not in Swedish as the previous utterances. Also the playful tone changes to one with no signs 35

of mockery or joking (Rontu 2007: 38). 7.5. Hedging “In addition, code mixing and code-switching serves an important function in hedging (e.g. taboo suppression, de-intensification, or a vague “sort of” expression) [...] This aspect of language mixing or language switching is often deliberate and is by and large a conscious process” (Bhatia, Ritchie 2004: 346). In the excerpt from Wei (1998: 168), a conversation between two teenage girls was recorded. A: “Can you take the camcorder?” B: (1.0) “I don’t know.” A: “You can’t? (2.5) Jong yau gei yat jau fan hokhau.” (Need to return to school in a few days.) B: “Hai a. Ngaw dou mou yausek.” (Yeah. I haven’t had a rest.) A: “Where do you want to go?” B: “I don’t know.” A: “Do you want to take the camcorder?” B: “Gnag m ji la. Me brother doesn’t like me taking it.” (I don’t know...) The switch from English to Cantonese after the 2,5-second silence is a try to restart the conversation about a different topic after having received an answer that A didn’t like. A then makes a second attempt, switching to English and the previous topic again. B responds with CS as well. “In the earlier response, B’s “I don’t know” in English is “hedged” with a one-second hesitation. This time B says “I don’t know” in Cantonese, which contrasts A’s language choice for the question, and then offers an account in English. It seems that the codeswitched Ngaw m ji la (I don’t know) serves the same function as the one-second hesitation in B’s previous response” (Wei 1998: 168–169). A conversation between a 11-year-old girl, a Chinese-English bilingual, and her mother is transcribed in the following example from Wei (2005). The girl issues the request for money in English. Speaking English instead of Chinese “may grant her less accountability for her what she says” (Wei 2005: 384). The CS follows after a series of indirect requests, gaps and silence, as the daughter has obviously been waiting for the

36

right moment. Significantly enough, the girl switches back to Chinese to provide a reason for the request. It is a response to her mother’s question, or indirect refusal, in English (Wei 2005: 384). Dauhgter: “Mama wo mingtian yao dao Jenny tamen jia qu ni bie wang le.” (Mum, don’t forget I’m going to Jenny’s tomorrow.) Mother: “Wang bu liao ni dou shuo duoshao bian le.” ((I) won’t forget. How many times have you said it?) Daughter: “Ni kaiche haishi baba kaiche.” (Are you going to drive (me there) or will daddy?) Mother: “Dao shihou zai shuo.” ((We’ll) decide at the time.) Daughter: “Mama women xiangqu kan dianying.” (Mum we want to go to the cinema.) Mother: “Mm.” Daughter: “Mama women keneng qu MetroCentre kan dianying.” (We’ll probably go to the cinema at the MetroCentre.) Mother: “Xing xing xing.” (Fine, fine, fine.) “Kan sheme (nimen zhedao ma youmeiyou hao kan de).” (Do you know what to see? Is there anything nice to see?) Daughter: “Jenny shuo ta xian da dianhuo wenwen.” (Jenny says she’ll phone and ask the cinema first.) “Can I have some money pleeease.” Mother: “What for?” Daughter: “wo he Jenny qu MetroCentre kan dianying.” (Jenny and I are going to the cinema at the MetroCentre.) 7.6. Showing Respect “In coastal Kenya, where localistic sentiment is high, the young use both Swahili and their native languages in talking to each other, but report that it would be an affront to speak Swahili to their elders” (Wald, 1974). This was so, even though the elders were bilinguals, too. In such a case, the language choice and CS symbolize respect and the relationships between two age groups in the community. Furthermore, Korean as a language is a very good instance when looking for the expression of respect by the language itself. The grammatical and lexical elements of the language indicate social hierarchy and stratification (Sohn 1981). Hence, switching

37

to Korean can stand for indexing traditional Korean hierarchical relationships (Shin 2010: 100). In the following excerpt Joshua is playing a video game in the church office, when Elder Park comes to pick up his bag in the office and asks Joshua, in English, what he is doing in the office. Although the conversation starts in English, Joshua replies in Korean, using honorific forms both in verb conjugation and addressee terms. “When Korean-American children at church switch to Korean from English, they are expressing respect and deference to an older person at church” (Shin 2010: 111). This happens regardless of their fluency in English for they view Korean as the appropriate language to use when talking to adults. Elder Park: “Joshua, what are you doing here?...Playing computer game? Game machine?” Joshua: “Video-game hago isso-oyo. Jangro-nim-un-yo?” (I’m playing video-game. What about you?) Elder Park: “Gabang-i-oyo.” (For my bag.) (he picks up his bag on the couch) “Bab mokeuru gal-kka-oyo.” (Do you want to go to eat?) Joshua: “Ne?” (Pardon me?) Elder Park: “Bab [mokuro].” (To eat?) Joshua : “Olsso] mok-oso-oyo mani du-se-oyo jangro-nim.” (I already ate. Please help yourself, elder.) Elder Park: “Ne.” (Yes.) (Shin 2010: 98–99)

38

8. Attitudes towards CS 8.1 Societal Evaluation of CS Although CS

has been accepted as “a natural and systematic aspect of

bilingualism by sociolinguists for many years, there is a tendency for the general public to still view it negatively” (Chin, Wigglesworth 2007: 120). Grosjean (2010: 52) agrees when he states that CS has often been criticized as “many feel that it creates an unpleasant mixture of languages, produced by people who are careless in the way they speak.” According to him, this has led to another common misconception that bilinguals code-switch out of pure laziness. As far as the negative views of CS are concerned, it is generally known that for example in Texas and the American southwest, where CS takes place among Mexican Americans, the derogatory term Tex-Mex is used. Similarly, in French-speaking Canada the term joual expresses the same concept. CS serves many purposes in the bi- and mutlilingual discourse but the language puritans believe that bilinguals have “trouble expressing themselves in either language” because of their asymmetrical language proficiency or language deficiency and/or their memory recall limitations. The critics believe that CS is primarily used as a strategy to mask the linguistic deficiency (Bhatia, Richie 2004: 349–350). Zentella (1997) disapproves of such a misconception. She found out that even non-fluent bilingual children rarely use language CS for masking purposes. Moreover, the creativeness of CS has been widely exploited globally in advertising, and this does not seem to correspond to the general negative attitudes CS tends to attract. Therefore there is a belief that the covert prestige of CS may in fact still be very high (Bhatia, Ritchie 2004). 8.2 Bilinguals’ Perception of CS On one hand, there are positive attitudes towards the usage of CS as it is in the case of Puerto Rican-English bilinguals. They consistently viewed CS favourably and in their speech CS occurred as much as 97% of the time (Poplack 1979). On the other hand, Bhatia and Ritchie (2004: 350) state that except from the highly linguistically aware bilinguals, “the vast majority of bilinguals themselves hold a negative view of code-mixed speech.” They consider CS to be a sign of “laziness”, an “inadvertent” speech act, an “impurity” and instance of linguistic decadence and a potential danger to their own linguistic performance. Gumperz (1982) adds that when bilinguals are made aware of their CS/CM, they 39

blame a “lapse of attention” for their “poor” linguistic performance and promise not to switch again. However, CS is so natural for their speech that even after such a promise they code-switch either immediately or very shortly afterwards. Interestingly, in their study of CS in Tunisia in Arabic-French bilinguals, Lawson and Sachdev (2000: 1357) found out that the negative attitudes of the bilinguals were not reflected in their actual behavior. “The findings […] suggest that participants in bilingual Tunisia self-reported and actually used CS to a much greater degree than might be expected of a typically negatively evaluated variety.” The supression of CS might have negative consequences. Chin and Wigglesworth (2007: 122) assume that stigmatization of CS will gradually lead to its avoidance, which may lead to attrition in the less dominant language and may contribute to negative self-identity in bilinguals.

40

9. Conclusion Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982: 115), Myers-Scotton (1997) and Poplack (1979) came to the same conclusion and since, that CS is most frequent among the (most) proficient bilinguals and is governed by strict structural and grammatical rules of both the languages. It “involves enough knowledge of two (or more) grammatical systems to allow the speaker to draw from each system only those rules which the other shares, when alternating one language with another” (Poplack 1979). Romaine (1995: 143) adds that the bilingual just has a wider choice because the second language system is at the disposal of the speaker – at least when he or she is talking to bilingual speakers. Moreover, Kim (2006: 51) claims that CS is “a linguistic tool and a sign of the participants’ awareness of alternative communicative conventions.” This is opposed by Goodz (1989: 27) who states that it is often so in adults, whereas in children it indicates interference or confusion caused by simultaneous exposure to two languages. Furthermore, CS is described as a skill of the bilingual speaker, an ability to select the language according to external factors like the particular interlocutor, the situational context and the topic of conversation (Köppe, Meisel 1995: 277). That is closely linked to the notion of communicative competence. That term is to be distinguished from linguistic competence which covers the speaker’s ability to produce grammatically correct sentences, because communicative competence describes the ability of the speaker to select, from the totality of grammatically correct expressions available to him or her, forms which appropriately reflect the social norms governing behavior in specific encounters (Gumperz 1973). Wang and Hyun (2009) as well as Wolff (1999) support this idea as they claim that CS manifests the communicative competence of bilingual children, because children make use of it as the communicative need arises. The exploitation of several languages in the same discourse definitely enriches the children’s inventory of linguistic expression (Wolff 1999: 17). My hypotheses stating that bilingual children use CS as a communicative strategy to achieve the desired goals was proven by the fact that all the thirteen purposes mentioned in Baker and García (1993), referring to all bilinguals in general, apply to bilingual children as well. Not only that, I have found six other purposes, which leads to the conclusion that CS is used by bilingual children in various ways to fulfil numerous aims during a discourse. Therefore, CS in bilingual children shoud not be disapproved of as a confusion by two languages but it should be supported as a skill and a sign of

41

communicative competence.

42

10. Bibliography Affirin, Kamisah and Shameem Rafik-Galea. (2009). Code-switching as a Communication Device in Conversation. Retrieved from www.crisaps.org/newsletter/summer2009/Ariffin.doc Arthur, Jo. (1996). Code Switching and Collusion: Classroom Interaction in Botswana Primary Schools. Linguistics and Education 8, 17–33. Auer, Peter. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Auer, Peter (ed). (1998). Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge. Baker, Colin and Ofelia García. (1993). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, Colin. (1996). A Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bhatia, Tej K. and William C. Ritchie. (2004). Social and Psychological Factors in Language Mixing. In William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of Bilingualism. Blackwell Publishing. 336–352. Bloomfield, Leonard. (1933). Language. New York: Hlt, Rinehart and Winston. Clyne, Michael. (1967). Transference and Triggering: Observations on the Language Assimilation of Postwar German-speaking Migrants in Australia. The Hague: Nijhoff. Clyne, Michael. (1972) Perspectives on Language Contact. Melbourne: The Hawthorn Press. Diebold, A. Richard. (1964). Incipient Bilingualism. In: Dell H. Hymes (ed.) Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper & Row. 495–511. Dolitsky, Marlene. (2000). Codeswitching in Childs Monologues. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1387–1403. Dulay, Heidi C., Marina K. Burt and Stephen D. Krashen. (1982) Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press. Eastman, Carol M. (1992). Code Switching as an Urban Language Contact Phenomenon. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13, 1–17 . Fantini, Alvino E. (1978). Bilingual Behavior and Social Cues: Case Studies of Two Bilingual Children. In: Michel Paradis (ed.) Aspects of Bilingualism. Columbia S.C: Hornbeam Press. 285–301.

43

Gal, Susan. (1988). The Political Economy of Code Choice. In: Monica Heller (ed.) Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 243–261. Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Genessee, Fred. (1984). The Social Psychological Significance of Code Switching for Children. Applied Psycholinguistics 5, 3–20. Genesee, Fred, Isabelle Boivin and Elena Nicoladis. (1996). Talking with Strangers: A Study of Bilingual Children’s Communicative Competence. Applied Psycholinguistics 17, 427–442. Goodz, Naomi Singerman. (1989). Parental Language Mixing in Bilingual Families. Infant Mental Health Journal 10, 1, 25–44. Grosjean, François. (2010). Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, John Joseph. (1973). The Communicative Competence of Bilinguals: Some Hypotheses and Suggestions for Research. Language and Society 2 (1), 143–154. Gumperz, John Joseph. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamers, Josiane F. and Michael H. A. Blanc. (2000). Bilintuality and Bilingualism. (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammink, Julianne E. (2000). A Comparison of the Code Switching Behavior and Knowledge of Adults and Children. Retrieved from http://hamminkj.tripod.com/babel/CS_paper.htm Harding, Edith and Philip Riley. (2003). The Bilingual Family. A Handbook for Parents. Cambridge. University Press. Chin, Ng Bee and Gillian Wigglesworth. (2007). Bilingualism: An Advanced Resource Book. Oxon: Routledge. Cheng, Karen Kow Yip. (2003). Code-switching for a Purpose: Focus on Pre-school Malaysian Children. Multilingua 22, 59–77. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chung, Haesook Han. (2006). Code Switching as a Communicative Strategy: A Case Study of Korean – English Bilinguals. Bilingual Research Journal 30, 2, 301–304. Jørgensen, Jens Normann. (1998). Children’s Acquisition of Code-switching for Power Wielding. In: Peter Auer Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction 44

and Identity. London: Routledge. 237–258. Kabuto, Bobbie. (2010). Code-switching during Parent – Child Reading Interactions: Taking Multiple Theoretical Perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 10, 131. Retrieved from http://ecl.sagepub.com/ Kim, Eunhee. (2006). Reasons and Motivations for Code-Mixing and Code-Switching. Issues in EFL 4, 1. Retrieved from http://ebookbrowse.com Koike, Dale April. (1987). Code Switching in the Bilingual Chicano Narrative. Hispania 70, 148–154. Köppe, Regina and Jürgen M. Meisel. (1995). Code-switching in Bilingual First Language Acquisition. In: Lesley Milroy Pieter Muysken (Eds) One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 276–301. Lanza, Elizabeth. (1992). Can Bilingual Two-year-old Code-switch? Journal of Child Language 19 (3), 633–658. Lawson, Sarah and Itesh Sachdev. (2000). Codeswitching in Tunisia: Attitudinal and Behavioural Dimensions. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1343–1361. Leopold, Werner F. (1978). A Child’s Learning of Two Languages. In: Evelyn Hatch (ed.) Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. 23–32. Lightbown, Patsy M. and Nina Spada. (2006). How Languages are Learned. (3rd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackey, William F. (1962). The Description of Bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 7, 51–85. Macnamara, John. (1969). How Can One Measure the Extent of a Persons Bilingual Proficiency? In: Louis Gérard Kelly (ed.) Description and Measurement of Bilingualism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 80–119. Malakoff, Marguerite and Kenji Hakuta. (1991). Translation Skill and Metalinguistic Awareness in Bilinguals. In: Ellen Bialystok (ed.) Language Processing in Bilingual Children. New York: Cambridge University Press. 141–166. Mannle, Sara, Michelle Barton and Michael Tomasello. (1991). Two-year-olds’ Conversations with Their Preschool-aged Siblings and Their Mothers. First Language 12, 57–71. McLaughlin, Barry. (1984). Second-language Acquisition in Childhood. I. Preschool Children (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 45

Meisel, Jürgen M. (1989). Early Differentiation of Languages in Bilingual Children. In: Kenneth Hyltenstam and Loraine K. Obler (eds). Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity and Loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13–40. Myers-Scotton, Carol and William Ury (1977). Bilingual strategies: The Social Function of Codeswitching. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 13, 5–20. Myers-Scotton, Carol. (1993). Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon. Myers-Scotton, Carol (1997). Code-switching. In: Florian Coulmas (ed.) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 217–237. Nomura, Maki. (2003). Bilingualism and Multilingualism: A Study of Code Switching. Kobe University International Student 9, 99–111. Retrieved from http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/repository/00523015.pdf Nussbaum, Luci. (1990). Plurilingualism in Foreign Language Classrooms in Catalonia. Papers for the Workshop on Impact and Consequences: Broader Considerations 141–165. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. Nwoye, Onuigbo Gregory. (1993). Code-switching as a Conscious Discourse Strategy: Evidence from Igbo. Multilingua 12–4 . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Peynircioglu, Zehra. F. and Aydm Y. Durgunoglu. (2002). Code-Switching in Preschool Bilingual Children. In: Roberto R. Heredia and Jeanette Altarriba (eds.) Bilingual Sentence Processing. New York: Elsevier Science. 339–56. Pfaff, Carol W. (1979). Constraints on Language-mixing: Intrasentential Codeswitching and Borrowing in Spanish/English. Language 55, 291–318 . Poplack, Shana. (1979). Sometimes I’ll Start a Sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPANOL: Toward a Typology of Code-Switching. CENTRO Working Papers 4. Reyes, Iliana. (2004). Functions of Code Switching in Schoolchildren’s Conversations. Bilingual Research Journal 28, 1. Rontu, Heidi. (2007). Codeswitching in Triadic Conversational Situations in Early Bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 11, 4, 337–358. Kingston Press. Saunders, George. (1988). Bilingual Children: From Birth to Teens. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sebba, Mark and Tony Wooton. (1998). We, They and Identity. Sequential versus 46

Identity-related Explanation in Code-switching. In Peter Auer Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge. 262–286. Shin, Sarah J. and Lesley Milroy. (2000). Conversational Codeswitching among Korean-English Bilingual Children. International Journal of Bilingualism 4, 351–383. Shin, Sun-Young. (2010). The Functions of Code-switching in a Korean Sunday School. Heritage Language Journal 7, 91–116. Sohn, Ho-min. (1981). Power and Solidarity in the Korean Language. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 14, 431–452 . Stolt, Birgit (1964): Die Sprachmischung in Luthers Tischreden. Studien zum Problem der Zweisprachigkeit. Stockholm: Stockholmer Germanistische Forschungen. Tracy, Rosemarie: Language Mixing as a Challenge for Linguists. (2000) In Susanne Döpke (ed.) Cross-linguistic Structures in Simultaneous Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 11–36. Wald, Benji. (1974). Bilingualism. Annual Review of Anthropology 3, 301–321. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949293 Wang, Li-Chen and Eunsook Hyun. (2009). A Study of Sociolinguistic Characteristics of Taiwan Children’s Peer-talk in a Mandarin–English-speaking Preschool. Journal of Early Childhood Research 7, 3–26. Wei, Li. (1998). The Why and How Quesitons in the Analysis of Conversational Code-switching. In Peter Auer Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge. 156–76. Wei, Li. (2005). “How Can You Tell?” Towards a Common Sense Explanation of Conversational Code-switching. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 383–384. Wei, Li and Peter Martin. (2009). Conflicts and Tensions in Classroom Codeswitching: An Introduction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12, 2, 117–122. Weinrich, Uriel. (1968). Languages in Contact. The Haugue: Mouton. Wolff, H. Ekkehard. (1999). Pre-School Child Multilingualism and its Educational Implications in the African Context. PRAESA (Project on Alternative Education in South Africa). University of Cape Town, South Africa. Zentella, Ana Celia. (1997). Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. New York: Blackwell Publishing.

47

English Resumé This thesis deals with the phenomenon called “code-switching” (CS) with a special focus on bilingual children. CS, although being absolutely common and normal in a bilingual community, has been often discouraged in children, mistakenly believed to be a sign of language incompetence. The aim of the thesis is to find out, whether all thirteen purposes mentioned in Baker and García’s Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (1993) apply to children as well, not just all bilinguals in general. Consequently, I would like to prove that CS is used by bilingual children as an excellent communicative strategy in order to achieve their goals. The first chapter deals with the general introduction of bilingualism, its types and stages and classification of bilingual acquisition in children. Then, CS is defined and its types are included, too. In the next chapter other similar phenomena, borrowing and code-mixing, are distinguished from CS. I also discuss the difference between younger and older children in relation to CS, the chapter shows their linguistically more sophisticated behavior and the changing patterns of CS as the children grow older. Afterwards, I continue with the main part of my thesis dealing with the thirteen purposes of CS Baker and García (1993) mention. In addition, a list of other purposes found in various studies on CS follows. In the eighth chapter I deal with attitudes towards CS, from the society’s point of view compared to the perception of bilinguals themselves. Finally, I summarize my findings which show that there are numerous ways a bilingual child can use CS in order to achieve their desired goals. In addition, CS in bilingual children is a sign of communicative competence and not of a lack of language proficiency.

48

České Resumé Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá fenoménem nazvaným “code-switching” (CS) se speciálním zaměřením na bilingvální děti. Ačkoliv se CS v bilingválních komunitách vyskytuje úplně běžně, je snaha zabránit jeho výskytu u dětí, protože je mylně považován za znak jazykové nekompetentnosti. Cílem této práce je zjistit, jestli se všech třináct účelů CS uvedených v Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Baker, García 1993) vztahuje na všechny bilingvální lidi, včetně dětí. Následně bych chtěla dokázat, že CS je skvělou, dětmi využívanou komunikační strategií, pomocí které dosahují své cíle. První kapitola se zabývá všeobecným úvodem do bilingvismu, jeho typy a stupni a klasifikací osvojování si dvou jazyků v dětském věku. Následně definuji CS a jeho jednotlivé typy. V další kapitole je potřeba rozlišit CS a dva jemu podobné fenomény: borrowing a code-mixing. Věnuji se také rozdílu mezi mladšími a staršími dětmi ve vztahu k CS, kapitola taktéž znázorňuje lingvisticky sofistikovanější chování a měnící se vzory používání CS se vzrůstajícím věkem dětí. Dále pokračuji hlavní částí mojí práce, která se zaměřuje na uvedených třináct účelů CS. V sedmé kapitole následuje seznam dalších účelů, zmíněných v různých jiných studiích. Osmá kapitola projednává postoje CS jednak z pohledu společnosti, tak i bilingválních jedinců samotných. Nakonec shrnu svoje výsledky, které ukazují, že bilingvální dítě může mnoha způsoby využívat CS na dosáhnutí požadovaných cílů. Kromě toho, CS u bilingválních dětí je ukazatelem komunikační kompetence a ne znakem nedostatku jazykové zdatnosti.

49