Content uploaded by Fotini Anastassiou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fotini Anastassiou on May 08, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Fotini Anastassiou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fotini Anastassiou on Oct 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2518-3966
13
Factors Associated with the Code Mixing and Code
Switching of Multilingual Children: An Overview
Fotini Anastassiou, PhD
Prof. Georgia Andreou
University of Thessaly / Hellenic Open University
Abstract:
Code mixing and code switching are useful strategies for the
multilingual speakers and they use them to succeed their communication,
depending on the situation and their interlocutors. These strategies are seen
throughout this paper and the studies reviewed show that code mixing and
code switching can be exceptional qualities which are employed by speakers,
either at some point of their lives or continuously - especially in the case of an
environment that supports multiple language use. The individual
characteristics of the speakers, their language environment, the social status of
their languages as well as the everyday usage of them, are all factors that may
influence the mechanisms of code mixing and code switching and should be
taken into consideration by the teaching and the pedagogic community as
children need to feel assured that their languages are all appreciated and taken
into consideration. This can improve not only their language learning results
but also their general learning career.
Keywords: Multilinguals, code mixing, code switching, communication
strategies, language learning/teaching.
Introduction
Ever since the importance of multilingualism has been largely
acknowledged more and more research is being conducted on the acquisition
and learning of a third language (L3). This is mainly because of the vast
mobility of populations between countries and mixed marriages (Barnes,
2005). Since multilinguals are far more compared to monolinguals in the
world (Tucker, 1998) it is just as important to investigate the way bilinguals
use their languages while still in the process of learning their third language.
A child’s ability to communicate in more than one language is surely a more
complex ability and thus represents an intricate phenomenon too. This
phenomenon entails acquiring more than one grammatical system as well as
language learning processes that are not part of a single vacuum.
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2410-6577
14
Families whose members come from different ethnic and/or national
backgrounds are globally increasing (Cruz-Ferreira 2006, Tokuhama-
Espinoza 2000, 2001). Children growing up in multinational families are often
in contact with more than one language through their parents, and in some
cases these heritage languages are supported by the linguistic system of the
wider community’s language. In cases that more than one language is
available to individuals (i.e. multilinguals) the use of their multiple languages
and the way they interact with each other can appear in many combinations
and it can also prove that these speakers can be very resourceful compared to
monolinguals.
This paper aims to review the theories regarding the code mixing and
the code switching techniques the multilinguals employ when they use more
than one language during their speech productions as well as the factors that
may affect these subconscious choices on behalf of them.
Defining Code Switching and Code Mixing
Hans Vogt (1954) was the first one to introduce the term “code-
switching”, while he was reviewing Weinreich’s “Languages in Contact”
(1953). The terms code switching and code mixing have been the research
subject of language contact for more than fifty years, and they have been
defined by Haugen (1956) and Gumperz (1982) as the alternating use of two
languages. Code switching and code mixing have often been used vice versa;
Code switching (see e.g. Sankoff and Poplack, 1981; Zentella, 1997; Bullock
and Toribio, 2009) is seen as a structurally constrained combination of two (or
more) languages and can take place either in a single sentence
(“intrasentential”) or from one sentence to another within a conversation
(“intersentential”). Meisel (1995) argued that the term “Language-Mixing”, in
general terms, refers to all occasions where elements of the two languages are
mixed within a clause or across a clausal boundary, and on the other hand
“Code-Switching” is a specific subdivision of mixing that relates to the
bilingual’s actual abilities, i.e. selecting the language in accordance to the
interlocutor, the context or the topic of the conversation, etc. without
“breaking” any syntactic rules.
However, Thomason (2001: 262) has suggested that code switching is:
“The use of material from two (or more) languages by a single speaker with
the same people in the same conversation (...) the term includes both switches
from one language to another at sentence boundaries (intersentential
switching) and switches within a single sentence (intrasentential switching).
The latter is sometimes called code-mixing”.
In this paper however, the previously mentioned terms will be used
according to Myusken (2000) who decided to used the term “Code Mixing”
for “all cases where lexical items and grammatical features of two languages
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2518-3966
15
appear in one sentence” (intrasentential), and the term “Code-switching” for a
“rapid succession of several languages in a single speech event”
(intersentential). So, the term code mixing refers to the mixing of different
linguistic units (words, phrases, sentences, modifiers) usually from two
participating grammatical systems within one sentence. In other words, code
mixing is governed by grammatical rules and can be prompted by
social/psychological motivations. Code switching refers to the combination of
different linguistic units (phrases, words, clauses, sentences) mainly coming
from two participating grammatical systems in a single speech event. Thus,
code switching is intersentential and can be subject to some conversation
principles.
Code switching and code mixing are phenomena that have been under
a lot of important attention in bilingualism’s literature, focusing mainly on
intrasentential instances (code mixing); however the attention on language
mixing in trilingualism, has only recently received significant attention, which
is also the case with trilingual data too (Rothman & Nino-Murcia, 2008).
According to the existing studies, mixes that involve a combination of all three
languages are rare since trilingual speakers usually combine elements of two
languages out of the three they have at their disposal (Anastassiou, 2014;
Edwards, 1994; Hoffman, 2001; Klein, 1995). However, there is not an
advantage for a specific subgroup of the three languages. Although, speakers
usually combine only two languages in their code mixes, in a broad sense this
happens with any potential combination of the three language systems.
Code mixing and code switching as naturally employed strategies by
multilingual children.
According to Cruz-Ferreira (2006: 20), language combinations seem
to “constitute a strategy for learning” and show a wide range of
communication tools rather than an absence of bilingual synonyms at the
lexical level or parasitic cross-linguistic alteration of the grammar systems
during the period of acquisition of any of the three languages. The early
language mixing during the early stages of language development is viewed
more like a spontaneous procedure than a mechanical transfer. In later stages,
taking for granted some level of proficiency in the languages in question, code
switching and code mixing might serve as a more sociolinguistic complex
phenomenon, in which more variables can play a determining role, like
linguistic identity, language negotiation, as well as the influence of the
interlocutors. All of these lead to the conclusion that multilingual children
have a wide perception of language principles, which they apply in various
combinations.
Hoffman also (2001) suggested that it is a communication strategy:
“For bilinguals or trilinguals it is normal to move between different languages
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2410-6577
16
when talking with each other, and code switching is an essential strategy for
them” (p. 11). In this case, learners are not considered as inadequate
monolinguals in each one of their languages, but more like people that possess
and manage more than one grammatical system; pieces from these systems
come into contact often enough and the speakers mix them in compatible ways
with each language, but they also represent individual properties specific to
the code switching situation.
Similarly, young children can be considered as explorers of the
languages they speak. Hamers and Blanc (2000) stated that language
formation is initiated in the “social interaction with others” (p.15); therefore
each one of the languages used is dictated by specific social functions which
are then transformed into actual expressions through a sequence of actions
onto linguistic forms. A multilingual child may keep the languages in a
balanced level, or in a state of altering connections at his social and personal
levels. If the sequence of forming and functioning or the social value of a
language changes, this will also lead to changes in language behaviour.
Conclusively, multilingualism is considered as an ongoing changing
phenomenon, which represents a process and not a state. This perspective is
also supported by numerous of the available empirical studies by many
researchers (see e.g. Cenoz, 2003; Cruz-Ferreira, 2006; Ervin-Tripp and Guo,
1992, in Ervin-Tripp and Reyes, 2005).
The fact that trilingual children can have numerous language choices
can lead to various linguistic formations which are different from a sense of a
single language proficiency, and therefore should be treated accordingly. As a
result, studies on trilingual code mixing and code switching, apart from
contributing to the relevant literature, should also contribute to the
development of new suggestions on the study of child trilingualism, the
distinction of the linguistic systems in the mind of children who own more
than one language, as their roles.
Code mixing and code switching as a communication strategy used by
children.
According to MacSwan (1999) code switching can be regarded as a
coping strategy to overcome specific communicative hardships in one or both
of the languages that are involved. In other studies these communicative
deficiencies are mentioned as semilingualism (MacSwan, 1999). The term
semilingualism was regarded as the state in which the bilingual speaker may
lack linguistic proficiency for one or more of the languages that he or she
speaks. This was often considered as the reason for low academic success for
a lot of multilingual children (Tokuhama-Espinoza, 2003). The term
semilingualism was largely applied to ethnic minorities and not to the speakers
of dominant languages (Wei, 2000). However, its perspective received
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2518-3966
17
criticism during the 1980s (Martin-Jones and Romaine, 1985; Poplack 1980)
for its faulty terminology (meaning that the speaker has less than one language
at his/her disposal, while in reality it is two language systems that are different
from two monolingual equivalents) and the prejudices it imposed on the
speakers of minority languages.
According to MacSwan (1999: 249) "If teachers believe that code
switching (sic) relates to an inherent disability in children which might be
remedied with sufficient instruction, then the children’s perceptions of their
own ‘natural abilities’ as severely limited, conveyed by classroom teachers,
will impact upon their success in school". The lower academic level of the
children in question was linked with a more general lower social and
educational level of their immigrant families and was also linked with various
other socioeconomic factors. Valadez, MacSwan and Martínez (1997)
performed a study in which they assessed how three low-performing children
possessed a grammar that was practically indistinguishable from the original
grammar of the control group, making it clearer that code switching (sic) in
cases like that can be attributed to other factors and not to some sort of
grammatical imperfection. Poplack (1980), in her research in mixed utterances
in English-Spanish bilinguals, was one of the first that claimed that this
phenomenon is not an indication of language imperfection; on the contrary it
showed that bilingual children were developing their languages normally:
“Code switching (sic), then, rather than representing deviant behaviour, is
actually a suggestive indicator of a degree of bilingual proficiency” (p. 73).
MacSwan (1999: 22) also shared this opinion by stating that “code switchers
(sic) have the same grammatical proficiency as monolinguals for the language
they use”, and thus instances of mixing of elements of two languages can be
attributed to an immature system in either language, and they are not caused
by interlinguistic misinterpretations (Goodz, 1989). Heritage language
speakers constitute a group that tends to code mix a lot; however, researchers
have shown that proficiency differences exist between the heritage language
and the majority language in this particular group of speakers (Montrul, 2008;
Polinsky, 2007).
Wei (1998: 207) agreed but also added the issue of cultural identity
shown in each specific language: “code-switching (sic), far from being caused
by an insufficient proficiency in one of the two languages, and besides
expressing a double cultural identity works as a communicative strategy used
for a variety of purposes, related either to the negotiation of the language of
interaction or to the organization of conversational activities”. Bilingual
children establish different language systems from the beginning and have the
ability to use the evolving languages according to the context they find
themselves in (Genesee, 1989). Cruz-Ferreira’s (2006) study, along with many
other current studies in child trilingualism, showed that if these children have
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2410-6577
18
the opportunity for a successful academic and linguistic development, then as
multilingual children present the same ability with, if not greater, with their
monolingual peers when it comes to academic achievement.
Another question is if code switches and code mixes are triggered by
lexical deficiencies. This could look like a rational explanation; even if
bilingual speakers have a totally developed grammatical system in each one
of the languages they speak, they may show a lack of specific lexical units that
are necessary for the expression of their ideas. Also, it needs to be stated that
although code mixing per se is not an indication of a lack of fluency, it could,
in some occasions, be a sign of a reduction in proficiency, namely language
attrition. Seliger (1996: 163) clearly suggested that mixing “can be considered
a precursor sign of primary language attrition when mixing begins to occur in
contexts that are not motivated by external factors such as interlocutor, topic,
or cultural environment”. Bolonyai (1998, 2009) found variations in the
amount and the structure of code mixing as the children that took part in the
study gradually turned to English-dominant and their use of Hungarian was
eventually less. They produced more code mixes than code switches and their
code mixes were grammatically English (matrix language). However, the
researcher did mention that when the children started visiting Hungary the
mechanism of language attrition was strongly hindered.
Older studies though, (Clyne, 1967; Lipski, 1978) suggested that code
switching (sic) cannot be attributed only to the lack of lexical availability.
Among others, Cruz-Ferreira (2006), Rothman and Niño-Murcia (2008)
displayed data on trilingual siblings which made it clear that the switches
between languages were not totally caused by the lack of available synonyms
in children’s vocabulary; in fact, in Rothman and Niño-Murcia’s study, the
children often used the correct terms from two languages conversely within
the same context. Moreover, Dewaele (2000: 42) studied his daughter’s
progress as she was being raised as trilingual. Although he stated that most of
his daughter’s utterances were mixes in two of the languages she owned, he
did observe that there were times that she used all of her three languages. He
reported that Livia (her name) even from the age of 2 years and 5 months was
able to use all of the three languages she spoke for the same concept. She first
used the English word, then the French and then the Dutch one for the word
“feet” as in the example:
L: Grands feet papa! (Big feet daddy!)
D: Grands pieds? (Big feet?)
L: Oui grands pieds! (Yes big feet!)
L: Voetje, non grands feet. (Small foot, not big feet). (*She points to her
feet).
What still remains open is the question of whether these mixes and
switches are caused by some type of language distribution according to which
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2518-3966
19
children tend to assign the term in a specific language to a specific context or
interlocutor. However, Livia was aware that her father knew all of her three
languages and thus she was feeling confident to use them when speaking with
him. Dewaele though had pointed out that she had a clear understanding of the
fact that not all of the interlocutors she was speaking with knew all of her
languages and she would only use English with her English friends and at
school. In that sense and because of her ability to include in her speech French
and Dutch only with children that understood it Dewaele rightly pointed out
that Livia was a perfect applied sociolinguist. For instance, she addressed a
French speaking child at school in French only when they were on their own.
If their English speaking schoolmates were present she would only use
English. Concluding, Baker (2000) suggested that code switching in general
should not be seen as a sign that bilinguals are not able to keep their languages
apart but more like a manifestation that they have a unique multicultural
personality. He added that bilingualism seems like “a more richly fed thinking
machine” (p. 67).
Contextual and social factors connected with the code switching and code
mixing of children.
Scotton and Ury (1977) claimed the existence of three prime factors
than lie behind code switching and code mixing; these factors are: identity,
power and transaction. The chosen language is selected according to these
factors. Myers-Scotton (2004) also shared a similar point of view with the
Markedness Model she proposed. According to this model, the speakers face
an awareness of markedness when it comes to the linguistic choice for various
situations or discourse types, and according to their relationship to the
situation and its participants they get to choose the language they will use.
According to Myers-Scotton (1993) there is also a principle that has to be
taken into consideration as the basis of all code switches (sic) and that is the
Negotiation Principle: “Choose the type of your conversation input in a way
that it points the set of rights and obligations [the PRO set] that you covet to
be in force between speaker and the person addressed to for the exchange” (in
MacSwan, 1999: 39). This principle suggested that people are trying to form
their social relationships according to their choice of languages within their
conversations or their speech. Bilingual children come in contact with the
mainstream language usually at their school age, when the basic education
begins, so the parent languages are characterized as “home languages” or
“inside languages”. At the same time the taught language opposes to the home
language and it becomes the “outside “language” (Ervin-Tripp and Reyes,
2005, also similar to the division between we-code and they-code proposed by
Gumperz, 1982). The next step for the child is to try and bring a balance to
these languages depending on the speech situation, which should be examined
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2410-6577
20
on an individual basis. There is also another significant factor that has to be
taken into consideration in code switching and code mixing strategies and this
is the language negotiation between the two speakers. It could be easily
characterized as unfair to ascribe the choice of language absolutely to the
speaker, without taking into consideration the impact of the other interlocutor
and the number of switches and mixes that are needed so as to be a norm inside
a certain circle of people. The feedback taken from the interlocutor, the overall
value attributed to each language and the quality of the linguistic group that
the conversation occurs in, they all appear to have an impact on the number
and type of switches and mixes produced.
Language negotiation is a concept that may find ground to child speech
from an early stage. Vygotsky (1978) stated that whether children are inside
or outside a bilingual situation, they are equally affected by the same elements
as adults too and respond to the way others surrounding them express
themselves by means of “social” speech. Nicoladis and Genesee (1997)
confirmed that situational code switching (sic) is usual for young bilingual
children, based on an efficient separation and the way they are aware of their
interlocutors and the situation they find themselves in. This kind of evidence
is also introduced by speech production data derived from bilingual children
in the studies of Foster- Meloni (1978), Saunders (1988), Lanza (1992) and
others. The children’s mother tongue can be the language of the comparatively
powerless social group, as with Albanian in Greece (Anastassiou, 2014;
Anastassiou & Andreou, 2014), or as in fewer cases these days, the language
of a minority with a high status (e.g. French or Swedish in Greece). Children
are prone to the societal status and the prestige of their languages from their
young age and make use of it in various types of interaction with their peers
(Ervin-Tripp and Reyes, 2005; Shenk, 2008; Zentella, 1997). Young children
are also considered as quite sensitive to the power relationships between
languages (see Khattab, 2009).
Children can also be very sensitive to the amount or frequency that
switching and mixing might occur from their interlocutors and so they modify
their own speech by fluctuating the rate of code switching (and mixing) ever
since their preschool age (Comeau et all, 2003). Literally, their sociolinguistic
proficiency is more likely to begin to establish and develop almost at the same
time that their grammatical proficiency begins to occur, emerging as actual
language production (Andersen 1990, Hymes 1974, amongst others). Social
roles can definitely play an important part in language switches and mixes;
nevertheless, the individual characteristics of the speakers can also be very
important and influential. According to the longitudinal studies of
multilingualism in families (presented in Tokuhama-Espinoza 2001, 2003,
Cruz-Ferreira 2006, Davidiak, 2010 each summing up the speech data from
siblings) even children that are being raised in one family and thus in the same
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2518-3966
21
conditions appear to have different patterns of language use, which seem to
depend a lot on their personality and their communicative style. Therefore, the
social and personal factors have to be taken into consideration when
examining the presence of each language in a bilingual or a trilingual situation.
The Triggering Hypothesis.
Apart from the social and discourse mechanisms that may influence
code switching and code mixing, theories have suggested other mechanisms
too, such as the triggering hypothesis. Clyne (1967, 1972, 1977, 1980, 2003)
also suggested another explanation for the switches and mixes with a
hypothesis he made. He clarified that cognates “trigger” code switching in
their close environment, no matter if they are preceding or following them.
Such trigger words include the following groups:
a) Lexical transfers (lexical items which belong to one language but
also form part of the speaker’s lexicon in another language, such as names of
certain foods),
b) Bilingual homophones,
c) Proper nouns.
Moreover, according to Clyne, these kinds of words make the speakers
identify the language they begin to talk in as the linguistic system of their
conversation and to continue speaking in this particular language. Apart from
that, Clyne also reported various occasions of mixing, or transversion as he
characteristically refers to this process, produced by prosodic and syntactic
factors. Depending on the position in relation to the lexical switch, Clyne
classified the triggers as “consequential” (the trigger word is followed by the
switch), “anticipational” (the trigger word is preceded by the code switch [sic])
and finally a category derived from a combination of these two, having the
lexical switch being put between two trigger words. It cannot be taken for
granted that this hypothesis can fully predict the change of code next to a
candidate trigger word. However, it can be assumed that the existence of such
words increases the possibility of code switching and mixing, depending at the
same time on the position the trigger has in a sentence along with its
pronunciation; with regard to the structural relationship there is no influence
accredited to the trigger word and the adjacent sentence elements, therefore it
somehow becomes a rigid surface phenomenon. Triggering is also considered
to happen during overlaps of meaning between the words in two different
languages, and so false cognates cannot be expected to act as triggers. True
triggers would include words that have slight morphological and phonological
differences, such as “boot” in English and “mpota” in Greek. Apart from
Clyne, the triggering hypothesis has also been studied and tested by other
researchers like Broersma & de Boot (2006), who broadly agreed with Clyne’s
suggestion that trigger words can in some occasions lead to a code mix, but
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2410-6577
22
they clarify that the reasons that cause code switching and code mixing are
way more complex than what Clyne supports and will be different according
to the speaker’s individual characteristics, occasions and situations.
Conclusion
In this paper we presented a review of the theories on code mixing and
code switching of multilinguals and we tried to give an overview of the
mechanisms these speakers employ when they communicate with either
people who speak the same languages they do or with people who may only
speak one of them. It is evident that multilinguals use their code mixing and
code switching mechanisms in order to support their communications and
according to the research conducted and reviewed in this paper multilinguals
are very efficient in manipulating their speech production to meet their needs
depending on their interlocutors and the situation they find themselves in.
Also, the scholars reviewed here seem to agree that multilinguals turn to code
mixing or code switching as a mean of communication and they do not
consider these communication mechanisms as a drawback, as people used to
perceive them. Even in the cases that code mixing or code switching is used
by speakers that have not fully developed one of their languages and they have
to turn to these mechanisms in order to get their message across, it should be
seen as a stage of their language learning and not as a deficiency. Multilinguals
are far more intricate users of their languages compared to monolinguals or
bilinguals. Therefore, the study of the way they move between their languages
can help us to further understand their potentials and their abilities and treat
them accordingly, especially when it comes to language and teaching
pedagogy. Code mixing or code switching should thus be regarded by
language teachers and parents as a rather useful strategy employed by young
learners. The older negative perceptions held about code mixing and code
switching has been seen by researchers not to be the case. The points to be
applied within the classroom, either it is a second and/or a second language
lesson or a general class that is comprised of multilingual children, are very
Cummins and McNeely (1987) emphasized on power relations
between groups within the school environment and between teachers and
students. These power relations are determined to a degree by the very nature
of being a second or a third language learner. Also, according to Oliver and
Purdie (1998) students perceive that their teachers and peers feel more
positively when the environment language is used rather than their heritage
language, in all contexts.
Code switching and code mixing should therefore be encouraged by
teachers and all of the class should become aware of their classmates’ need to
use their other languages when they emerge during their conversations.
Multilingual students have different needs than their monolingual peers and
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2518-3966
23
these should be taken into consideration by the teaching and the pedagogic
community as children need to feel assured that their languages are all
appreciated since most of the times these are associated with another heritage.
This can improve not only their language learning results but also their general
learning career. Attitudes are determinants of the manner in which students
engage in language learning at school, they influence learners’ expectations
for success and they do play a significant role in students’ successful
maintenance of their mother tongue or their heritage language (Cummins,
1984).
References:
Anastassiou, F. (2014). Children learning English as a third language: a study
on their L3 speech production. PhD Thesis, University of Thessaly, Greece.
Anastassiou, F. & Andreou, G. (2014). Multilingualism in Greece: A study of
speech production of trilingual children. In Major Trends in Theoretical and
Applied Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 20th International Symposium
on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (vol. 2 pp. 187-198). London: Versita
de Gruyter.
Andersen, E., (1990). Speaking with Style: The Sociolinguistic Skills of
Children. London and New York: Routledge.
Baker, C. (2000). A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism (2nd edition).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Barnes, J. (2005). Early Trilingualism: A Focus on Questions. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Bolonyai, A. (1998). In-Between Languages: Language Shift/Maintenance in
Childhood Bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4 (1), 81-106.
Bolonyai, A. (2009). Code-Switching, Imperfect Acquisition, and Attrition. In
B. Bullock and A. Toribio (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic
Code Switching (pp. 142-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Broesma, M., and de Boot, K. (2006). Triggered Codeswitching: A Corpus-
based Evaluation of the Original Triggering Hypothesis and a New
Alternative. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 9 (1): 1-13.
Bullock, B, and Toribio, J. (Eds). (2009). Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic
Code-Switching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The role of typology in the organization of the multilingual
lexicon. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, and U. Jessner (Eds) The multilingual
Lexicon (pp. 103-116). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Clyne, M. (1967). Transference and Triggering: Observations on the
Language Assimilation of Postwar German-Speaking Migrants in Australia.
Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Clyne, M. (1972). Perspectives on Language Contact: Based on a Study of
German in Australia. Melbourne: Hawthorn.
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2410-6577
24
Clyne, M. (1977). Niew-Hollands or Double-Dutch. Dutch Studies, 3, 1-20.
Clyne, M. (1980). Triggering and Language Processing. Canadian Journal of
Psychology, 34, 400-406.
Clyne, M. (1980). Constraints on Code-Switching: How Universal are they?
Linguistics, 25, 739-764.
Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Comeau, L., Genesee, F., and Lapaquette, L. (2003). The Modeling
Hypothesis and Child Bilingual Codemixing. The International Journal of
Bilingualism, 7: 113-126.
Cruz-Ferreira, M. (2006). Three is a Crowd? Acquiring Portuguese in a
Trilingual Environment. Clevedon, UK; Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual Education and Special Education: Issues in
Assessment and Pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill.
Cummins, J. and McNeely, S. (1987). Language Development, Academic
Learning, and Empowering Minority Students. In Tikunoff, K. Bilingual
Education and Bilingual Special Education: A Guide for
Administrators. Boston: College Hill.
Davidiak, E. (2010). One? ¿Dos? Drei! A study of code switching in child
trilingualism. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2000), Trilingual first language acquisition: exploration of a
linguistic miracle. In: La Chouette 31, 77-86.
Edwards, J. (1994). Multilingualism. London: Routledge.
Ervin-Tripp, S.M. and Guo, J. (1992). Factors in individual mother tongue
maintenance in California. Unpublished paper.
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. and Reyes, I. (2005). Child code-switching and adult
content contrasts. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9: 69-84.
Foster-Meloni, C. (1978). Code-Switching and Interference in the Speech of
an Italian/English Bilingual Child: Age 6.5 to 8 Years. Rassegna Italiana di
Linguistics Applicata, 10: 89-95.
Hoffmann, C. (2001). The status of trilingualism in bilingualism studies. In J.
Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, and U. Jessner (eds.), Looking Beyond Second Language
Acquisition: Studies in Tri- and Multilingualism (pp. 13–25). Tubingen:
Staufenburg.
Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two.
Journal of Child Language, 16: 161-179.
Goodz, N. S. (1989). Parental language mixing in bilingual families. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 10: 25-44.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hamers, J., and Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge,
UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2518-3966
25
Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and
Research Guide. Publication of the American Dialect Society, 26, University
of Alabama Press.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic
Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Khattab, G. (2009). Phonetic accommodation in children’s code switching. In
B. Bullock and A. Toribio (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code
Switching (pp. 142-160). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, E. (1995). Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a
difference? Language learning; 45: 419-465.
Lanza, E. (1992). Can bilingual two-year-olds code-switch? Journal of Child
Language, 19: 633-658.
Lipski, J.M. (1978). Code-switching and the problem of bilingual competence.
In: M. Paradis (ed.). Aspects of Bilingualism. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam
Press.
MacSwan, J. (1999). A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code
Switching. New York and London: Gargald Publishing, Inc.
Martin-Jones M, & Romaine S. (1985). Semilingualism: a half-baked theory
of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 6: 105-17.
Meisel, J. (1995). Parameters in acquisition. In P. Fletcher and B.
MacWhinney (Eds.) The Handbook of Child Language, (pp. 10-35). Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the
Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code Mixing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivation for Codeswitching. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Myers Scotton, C. (2004). Precision tuning of the Matrix Language Frame
(MLF) Model of codeswitching. Sociolinguistics, 18: 106-117.
Nicoladis, E. & Genesee, F. (1997). Language development in preschool
bilingual children. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology,
21, 258-270.
Oliver, R. & Purdie, N. (1998). The Attitudes of Bilingual Children to their
Languages. Journal Of Multilingual And Multicultural Development. Vol. 19,
3, 199-211.
Polinsky, M. (2007). Heritage Languages: In the 'Wild' and in the classroom.
Language and Linguistic Compass, 1/5.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in English y termino en
español: Towards a typology of codeswitching. Linguistics; 18: 581-618.
Scotton, C., and Ury, W. (1977). Bilingual Strategies: The Social Functions of
Code- Switching. Linguistics, 193: 5-20.
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) September 2017 edition Vol.4 No.3 ISSN 2410-6577
26
Saunders, G. (1988). Bilingual Children: From Birth to Teens. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Sankoff, D. and Poplack, S. (1981). A formal grammar for code-switching.
Papers in Linguistics; 14 (1): 3-46.
Seliger, H. (1996). Primary Language Attrition in the Context of Bilingualism.
In W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 605-626). San Diego: CA: Academic Press.
Shenk, E. (2008). The economy of language choice: Where theory and
practice meet. PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa.
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language Contact. An Introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Tucker, G. R. (1998). A global perspective on multilingualism and
multilingual education In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (Eds) Beyond Bilingualism:
Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 3-15). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Tokuhama-Espinoza, T. (2000). The Multilingual Mind: Issues Discussed by,
for, and about People Living with Many Languages. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Tokuhama-Espinoza, T. (2001). Raising Multilingual Children: Foreign
Language Acquisition and Children. Westport, Conn.: Bergin and Garvey.
Valadez, C. M., MacSwan, J. & Martínez, C. (1997). Toward a new view of
low achieving bilinguals: Syntactic competence in designated "semilinguals."
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (AERA). http://www.public.asu.edu/~macswan/aera97.pdf
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard
University Press.
Wei, L. & Moyer, M. G. (Eds). (2008). The Blackwell Guide to Research
Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,
Malden.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems.
Linguistic Circle of New York, New York.
Zentella, A. (1997). Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New
York. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
