ArticlePDF Available

Multilingual Children’s Motivations to Code-Switch: A Qualitative Analysis of Code-Switching in Dutch-English Bilingual Daycares

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This paper investigates code-switching in young multilingual children through a qualitative analysis. Our aim was to examine which types of code-switches occur and to categorize these in terms of children’s motivations for code-switching. Data were collected from 70 children aged two to three years who attended Dutch-English daycare in the Netherlands where teachers adopted a one-teacher-one-language approach. We observed seven types of code-switches. Motivations for code-switching related to social, metalinguistic, lexical, or conversational factors. These data indicate that young children can tailor their language choices towards the addressee, suggesting a certain level of meta-linguistic awareness and perspective taking. Implications for computational approaches are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Sczepurek, Nina-Sophie,
Suzanne P. Aalberse, and Josje
Verhagen. 2022. Multilingual
Children’s Motivations to Code-
Switch: A Qualitative Analysis of
Code-Switching in Dutch-English
Bilingual Daycares. Languages 7: 274.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
languages7040274
Academic Editors: A. Seza Do ˘gruöz
and Sunayana Sitaram
Received: 16 May 2022
Accepted: 14 September 2022
Published: 26 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
languages
Article
Multilingual Children’s Motivations to Code-Switch:
A Qualitative Analysis of Code-Switching in Dutch-English
Bilingual Daycares
Nina-Sophie Sczepurek, Suzanne P. Aalberse and Josje Verhagen *
Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, 1000 BP Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*Correspondence: j.verhagen@uva.nl
Abstract:
This paper investigates code-switching in young multilingual children through a qualitative
analysis. Our aim was to examine which types of code-switches occur and to categorize these in
terms of children’s motivations for code-switching. Data were collected from 70 children aged two
to three years who attended Dutch-English daycare in the Netherlands where teachers adopted a
one-teacher-one-language approach. We observed seven types of code-switches. Motivations for
code-switching related to social, metalinguistic, lexical, or conversational factors. These data indicate
that young children can tailor their language choices towards the addressee, suggesting a certain
level of meta-linguistic awareness and perspective taking. Implications for computational approaches
are discussed.
Keywords: bilingual toddlers; codeswitching; bilingual daycare; qualitative analysis
1. Introduction
Multilinguals often switch between their languages (Moodley 2007;Paradis and
Nicoladis 2007;Song 2016), and young children are no exception: even children as young
as two years have been found to switch between languages in a conversation (Comeau et al.
2003;Lanvers 2001;Paugh 2005). Many studies have investigated adults’ speech to shed
more light on the motivations for code-switching (Bhatt and Bolonyai 2011;De Fina 2007;
Koch et al. 2001;Liu 2019;Yim and Clément 2019). This work has shown that switching
between languages can be motivated by a variety of factors, and involve, amongst others,
attempts to avoid breakdown in conversation or to better express a concept in one of the
languages (David 2003;Du-Re 2012). Comparably little research has been carried out on
the types of switches children produce and children’s motivations for switching. The few
available studies (see Table 1) have shown that children may be motivated by a variety of
code-switching factors such as insistence from peers, lexical gaps in their vocabulary, and
even conversational functions.
Previous studies have pointed out that younger bilingual children tend to show more
lexically motivated code-switches than older children (McClure 1981;Köppe and Meisel
1995;Zentella 1997). These children may use code-switching as a strategic medium to ‘fill
the gap’ in one language by using a word from the other language. It is commonly believed
that this gap-filling strategy serves to compensate for the lack of language proficiency in
one of children’s languages. Furthermore, it has been observed that older bilingual children
typically code-switched more (Reyes 2004) and exhibit a greater variety of code-switching
factors than younger bilingual children (Ervin-Tripp and Mitchell-Kernan 1977;Halmari
and Smith 1994;Jørgensen 1998;Reyes 2004).
Languages 2022,7, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040274 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages
Languages 2022,7, 274 2 of 28
Table 1. Overview of factors underlying code-switching in bilingual children in earlier work *.
Motivation Type Definition
Social
Privacy (Reyes 2004) Switching to another language to speak privately
Group identity and management (Cheng 2003;
Moodley 2007)
Creating a sense of (group) belonging and friendship
Change in setting, activity or context (Ervin-Tripp and
Reyes 2005;Halmari and Smith 1994;Kwan-Terry 1992;
see also Gumperz 1982)
Change of context/ situation as a source for
code-switching
Own preference (Dolitsky 2000;Gort 2012) “Momentary inclination” (Gort 2012, p. 61)
Teacher/ parental insistence (Lanvers 2001)
Adults’ preferences toward child’s language choices
Peer insistence (Davidiak 2010)Children’s preferences toward child’s
language choices
Accommodation of addressees’ preferences (Davidiak
2010;Ervin-Tripp and Reyes 2005;Genesee et al. 1996;
Lanvers 2001;Lanza 1997;Paradis and Nicoladis 2007)
Accommodating the language preferences or choices
of the addressee
Person specification (Davidiak 2010;Reyes 2004) Referring to another person
Evaluation and self-regulation skills (Cromdal 2004;
Gort 2012)Self-reflection of own process
Meta-linguistic
Literal translation (Cheng 2003;Lanvers 2001) Exact translation of words from L1 to L2
Metalinguistic insights (Gort 2012)
“Learner interest in and knowledge about the
relationship between their two languages” (Gort
2012, p. 57)
Lexical
Lack of translation-filling the gap (Cheng 2003;Davidiak
2010;Lanvers 2001)
Compensating for the lack of words in the L1 by
choosing a word from the L2 (i.e., filling the gap)
Lack of translation-word does not exist in the other
language (Cheng 2003;Davidiak 2010;Dolitsky 2000;
Ervin-Tripp and Reyes 2005;Gort 2012)
Using a term from the L1 to express a concept either
unique to or more thoroughly captured using a term
from the L2
Emphasis (Cheng 2003;Gort 2012)Creating emphasis, i.e., to highlight a message, e.g.,
with the use of translational equivalents
Dominance/proficiency (Lanvers 2001;Paradis and
Nicoladis 2007)Expressing a preference in language(s) choice(s)
Lexical preference (Lanvers 2001)
Preferring lexical items in one language over similar
lexical items in the other language
Conversational
Emphasis/insistence and de-emphasis (Cheng 2003;
Cromdal 2004;Davidiak 2010;Lanvers 2001;Reyes 2004)
Creating emphasis, i.e., to highlight a message, e.g.,
with the use of discourse particles
Shift in topic, person or conversational form (Cheng
2003;Davidiak 2010;Gort 2012;Halmari and Smith 1994;
Kyratzis 2010;Lanvers 2001;Paugh 2005;Reyes 2004)
Changing the topic, person or conversational form
(situational switch)
Discourse marker (Ervin-Tripp and Reyes 2005;Gort
2012;Moodley 2007;Reyes 2004)
Discourse marker function as instrument of the
context (Reyes 2004)
Question shift (Davidiak 2010;Reyes 2004) Presenting a question
Clarification or persuasion (Davidiak 2010;Moodley
2007;Reyes 2004)Elaborating with the help of CS
Opposition (Cromdal 2004) Marking a conflicting interest
Turn accommodation (Davidiak 2010;Moodley 2007;
Reyes 2004)
Code-switching taking place
between speaker turns
* Note: It is important to point out that this is not an exhaustive list. In addition, studies sometimes used other
terminology to describe a certain code-switching type than the terminology used here. Finally, there is a certain
degree of overlap across categories, especially among the lexically-motivated types.
Languages 2022,7, 274 3 of 28
The present study analyzed code-switches in the speech of multilingual two- and
three-year-old children in bilingual English-Dutch daycares in the Netherlands. Looking
at natural interactions in this particular setting allows us to examine diverse switching
behaviors given the diversity of the context: multiple speakers of various ages and language
backgrounds, and as such investigate a range of potentially underlying factors. Our aim was
to see which types of switches occurred and examine children’s motivations for switching,
so as to shed more light on the types of switches that very young children produce in a
natural, multilingual setting. We did not attempt to propose a new taxonomy of switching
but rather, see whether types of code-switches that have been proposed for adults and
school-aged children can be found in productions of children as young as two or three
years of age in a bilingual interactional setting. In doing so, we aimed to contribute to
a better understanding of the ways in which very young children code-switch and their
motivations to code-switch.
1.1. Theoretical Background
In this paper, we define code-switching “as the alternation of two languages within
a single discourse, sentence or constituent” (Poplack 1980,2001), thus including both
intra- and intersentential code-switching. Our focus is on lexical code-switching in which
lexical elements from one language are inserted in another language, as opposed to code-
switching involving morphological elements or word order patterns. In our study, we do
not distinguish between code-switching and code-mixing—a term that has also been used
in the literature. We do not equate code-switching and transfer, however, as we consider
transfer a broader term involving all sorts of cross-linguistic influence, including overuse
and underuse of words or structures, and avoidance patterns (cf. Ortega 2009).
1.2. Adult Code-Switching
Past research on bilingual adults has demonstrated that code-switching is associated
with several factors, which relate to various motivations, such as: motivations regarding
the speakers executing the code-switch, which includes their perception of and attitudes to
the language(s), the social environment surrounding the speakers, including the nuclear
family, relationships and (sub-)communities; such as (ethnic) identity (Yim and Clément
2019), (different) inter-community constraints (Bhatt and Bolonyai 2011), and attitudes
toward code-switching (Koch et al. 2001). Additional motivations closely relate to social
attitude and likability (Liu 2019), context (formal vs. informal setting) (Koch et al. 2001; see
also Schau et al. 2007), and (ethnic) group identity (Auer 2005;De Fina 2007). In addition,
adults may be motivated to code-switch by discourse-related factors, for example when
trying to explain or clarify a certain concept (David 2003). Specifically, discourse-related
motivations are at play when speakers use code-switching to design, structure and optimize
the conversation, for example, through emphasis (Gardner-Chloros et al. 2000), turn-taking
(Muñoa Barredo 1997;Kootstra et al. 2010), and topic shifts (Muñoa Barredo 1997).
Overall, studies on code-switching behavior have shown that bilingual adults exhibit
a variety of motivations to code-switch. In comparison to bilingual children, adults’ code-
switching is likely to be subject to a greater range of code-switching motivations due to
their age, assuming that a higher level of L2 proficiency and thus greater grammatical and
lexical knowledge in both the L1 and L2 is a factor that is associated with code-switching
productivity (Muysken 2000;Poplack 1980,2001; see also Duñabeitia et al. 2010a,2010b;
Perea et al. 2008). This assumption is further supported by the notion that the degree of
balance in bilingual speakers’ proficiency in their two languages is related to the use of
code-switching (Poplack 1980;Zentella 1982,1997).
Overall, code-switches in adults exhibit a range of underlying motivations, from social
motivations to discourse-related motivations. The question arises what code-switching
motivations are already found in young bilingual speakers.
Languages 2022,7, 274 4 of 28
1.3. Children’s Code-Switching and Language Proficiency
Many studies have investigated the relation between code-switching and language
proficiency in bilingual children (Bernardini and Schlyter 2004;Jisa 2000;Kuzyk et al. 2019;
Lanvers 2001). Typically, in this earlier literature, bilingual children’s ‘dominance’ in one
language (and thus the ‘weakness’ in the other language) has been related to the direction
or type of code-switching (Foroodi-Nejad and Paradis 2009;Jisa 2000;Lanza 1997;Paradis
and Nicoladis 2007;Yip and Matthews 2000;Yow et al. 2017), such that switching from
the non-dominant to the dominant language is more frequent than vice versa (Genesee
et al. 1995;Lanvers 2001). Relatedly, studies have often interpreted code-switching as a gap-
filling strategy, especially in younger children (Bernardini and Schlyter 2004;Nicoladis and
Secco 2000). That is, it has been proposed that bilingual children may use code-switching to
fill lexical gaps in one language—especially the language they are least proficient in—with
words from the other language.
Determining cross-language language proficiency in bilingual children is not trivial,
however: various assessments have been used (e.g., MLU, vocabulary knowledge, parent
ratings), each with their own limitations. Moreover, the relationship between language
proficiency and language dominance is a complicated one, with language dominance often
being based on a set of separate but interrelated factors, including language proficiency,
language use and language exposure (Unsworth et al. 2018).
Researchers therefore have argued against assessing language dominance (Birdsong
and Vanhove 2016;Quick Endesfelder et al. 2018), and proposed that language ‘dominance’
and the choice of language should be considered in relation to the topic and participants in
a conversation.
In former studies, children’s code-switching behavior has frequently been compared
to their expressive and receptive language proficiency (see Ribot and Hoff 2014 for an
overview). These studies report a correlation between code-switching and proficiency:
lower proficiency is associated with more code-switching. This correlation could result
from community norms that value language separation. In such cases there is a barrier to
switch and a lack of proficiency that might trigger crossing this barrier: because a child does
not know a word in one language, it uses the other language as a gap-filler. The correlation
between proficiency and likelihood of code-switching might not be generalizable to children
in all bilingual communities. See for example Bosma and Blom (2019) and Parafita Couto
et al. (2021) for the importance of taking the bilingual community and norms in the
bilingual community into account when formulating generalizations on code-switching or
of the absence of code-switching all together (Do˘gruöz et al. 2021).
All in all, the relation between language proficiency and code-switching in early
bilinguals has frequently been the subject in prior research. Some difficulties may arise
from the determination of language proficiency and/or language dominance, and the
gap-filling strategy that is often acknowledged may only be able to cover some code-
switching motivations.
1.4. Other Motivations for Children’s Code-Switching
Studies on bilingual children’s code-switching have also investigated other factors
other than language proficiency, such as pragmatic, contextual or social factors that may
serve as motivations for code-switching (Cheng 2003;Comeau et al. 2003;Davidiak 2010;
Ervin-Tripp and Reyes 2005;Genesee et al. 1996;Gort 2012;Lanvers 2001;Reyes 2004).
A social motivation for bilingual children to code-switch that has been proposed
relates to their sensitivity to an interlocutor. Comeau et al. (2003) found that six English-
French bilingual children were highly sensitive to an unknown interlocutor who visited the
children during 3 visits. During these 3 visits, the interlocutor changed his code-switching
rate from rather little (15%) to an increased rate in the second visit (40%) and then back to
15% in the third visit. The children adapted their code-switching rate as well—indicating a
heightened sensitivity to the immediate language choices by an unknown bilingual speaker.
Languages 2022,7, 274 5 of 28
Lanvers (2001) found that bilingual children were sensitive to an interlocutor’s lan-
guage preferences. She investigated two children from around two to three years of age and
found that one of the motivations for these children to code-switch was ‘social switching’
when the children accommodated their language preference to the preferred language of
the addressee, in this case the parents.
In addition, Genesee et al. (1996) investigated English-French bilingual children aged
2 years who were exposed to strangers in a play setting. This data was then compared to
the children engaging in the same setting with their children. They found that all of the
four children accommodated the language preference(s) (English-only, French-only, both
languages) of the stranger.
The ability for children to control and adapt their language choices to the language
choices of an addressee has also been shown by other studies involving peers (Davidiak
2010;Gort 2012;Moodley 2007;Reyes 2004), their teachers (Azlan and Narasuman 2013;
see also Thomas and Roberts 2011) and parents (Davidiak 2010;Lanvers 2001). Findings
from these studies indicate that bilingual children can accommodate to the socio-linguistic
context. Since conversational participants vary across various contexts, activities and
physical settings, these may affect the language choices of a bilingual child (Ervin-Tripp
and Reyes 2005;Paradis and Nicoladis 2007). Taken together, earlier studies have shown
that bilingual children are highly sensitive to the language choices of both known and
unknown participants in their immediate environment. Specifically, bilingual children
are aware of the language preferences and code-switching rates of their addressee and
take these into consideration when it comes to their own language choice and degree of
code-switching.
Other factors have also been found to play a role in children’s motivations to code-
switch, such as metalinguistic factors. Gort (2012) examined conversations of six English-
Spanish school children aged six to seven years old who participated in a writing workshop,
analyzing field notes and audio recordings of classroom activities as well as the written
works. One of the factors that motivated children’s code-switches was metalinguistic
insight, in particular, their attempts to translate, define, and discuss words or word forms
in both languages. One child produced the following sentence in a writing-related con-
versation: “Secret agent
. . .
como un detective. (Secret agent
. . .
like a detective.)” (Gort
2012, p. 63). Through his switch, according to the author, the child attempted to enrich her
writing concepts, decide on vocabulary and investigate reasonings.
Cheng (2003) also found that literal translation, as a code-switching motivation of
metalinguistic insight, was a motivation for children to code-switch (see also Lanvers 2001).
This author studied 60 children aged four to six years old who were asked to retell three
elements: a given rhyme, a given story as well as their own favorite story. In their retellings,
the children translated words literally from one language to the other. To explain these
switches, Cheng proposed that children applied literal translation as an interlanguage,
which is an “innovative strategy that confirms the creativity of children in the area of
meaning-making” (Cheng 2003, p. 74). Taken together, studies by Gort (2012) and Cheng
(2003) have shown that children may make metalinguistic comments, translate words or
use sentence structures from one language to the other, which may explain part of their
code-switches. Children’s comments on the relation between their two languages indicates
a developing awareness of their two languages and may help the children in their academic
journey, as seen in Gort (2012) above.
Finally, a last category of code-switching motivations found in the literature on bilin-
gual children’s code-switching involves conversational aspects, or discourse characteristics.
For example, this category may involve switches that can be explained by a shift in topic,
person or conversational form. Reyes (2004) investigated children’s code-switching from
academic talk to a casual conversation. In her study, she evaluated 20 friend pairs of either
seven or ten years of age who were both learning Spanish and English. All children were
audio recorded during waiting time and a science activity, resulting in 10 h of conversation.
In addition, she took reports from teachers, parents and children into account. In her study
Languages 2022,7, 274 6 of 28
children code-switched due to reasons related to discourse characteristics, such as turn
accommodation, emphasis and clarification.
By taking a comprehensive perspective on the variety of factors that could lead to
a code-switch, a more nuanced picture of children’s motivations to code-switch can be
ensured that also includes children who are in the process of acquiring a second or third
language. In addition to syntactic or structural constraints that may regulate the particular
form of code-switch (Bernardini and Schlyter 2004;Foroodi-Nejad and Paradis 2009;Par-
adis et al. 2000;Yip and Matthews 2000), factors surrounding the social, metalinguistic and
discourse-related factors are gaining more importance. By taking into account these factors,
we can contribute to viewing bilingual children as an individual with a bilingual identity,
that includes the knowledge of their first and second language, the sum of their knowledge
and experiences, as well as the manners in which they communicate and make meaning,
and emphasize their bilingual and bicultural identities (Manyak 2000;Moll and Dworin
1996;Pérez 2004). As shown in the above review of studies, multiple factors have been
proposed to account for code-switching in bilingual children. An overview of these is given
in Table 1below. As can be seen in this table, these factors can be categorized into four
broader categories: social, meta-linguistic, lexical, and conversational motivations. Social
motivations here refer to motivations that take the addressee and the social surrounding
into account: they could be to adapt to the linguistic knowledge and desires of the ad-
dressee, to do what is socially common with the addressee or when privacy is needed to
purposely exclude the addressee. With lexical motivation we refer to cases where a certain
word is only available in one language or a speaker only knows a word in one language.
Conversational motivations refer to switches that have a discourse effect such as emphasis.
Metalinguistic motivations are aimed at connecting forms, meanings or structures across
the two languages.
What is noteworthy is that, in many studies, code-switches were collected that did
not fit any predefined category above but were termed ‘other’. Specifically, various studies
acknowledge that not all code-switches can be placed in one of these categories and that the
motivation for switching cannot always be identified (Davidiak 2010;Redinger 2010;Reyes
2004). Lanvers (2001) also pointed to code-switching to incognizable or neutral items, such
as switching to a variation of yes (i.e., German “Ja” answering a question from English).
1.5. Current Study
Since most work on very young children has focused on language proficiency as the
major factor, it remains to be investigated which types of switches are found in very young
children and how these can be explained in terms of children’s motivations for switching.
As for conversationally motivated code-switching in particular, it is currently unclear which
types occur in very young children, since most studies studying types of switches in this
category looked at children aged six years or older, presumably because many pragmatic
language skills develop relatively late.
This study investigates which types of code-switches occur in multilingual two- and
three-year-old children from linguistically diverse backgrounds who attended Dutch-
English bilingual daycare. Specifically, our aim was to examine which types of code-
switches occur and categorize these in terms of children’s motivations for code-switching.
In so doing, we took an exploratory approach, analyzing the data on the basis of previously
established code-switching types and their motivations (as presented in Table 1), to see
which types and motivations do and do not occur at this young age.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data
The data formed a subset of the data that was collected for a study on the effects of
Dutch-English bilingual exposure at daycare on bilingual children’s language development
(project MIND, cf. Keydeniers et al. 2022;Verhagen and Andringa 2021). Project MIND is a
longitudinal project initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment in
Languages 2022,7, 274 7 of 28
which 10 English-Dutch bilingual daycares across the Netherlands participated. Video and
audio observations were performed at six different daycare locations, henceforth referred
to as daycares A, B, C, D, E and F.
All six daycares were Dutch-English bilingual daycares that offer daycare to children
up to 4 years of age and were similar with regard to daily routines. These daycares routines
included free play, snack and lunch breaks as well as circle times. During every routine,
two teachers were present with the children. The teachers of all daycares except those of
daycare B adopted a one teacher-one language strategy. This meant that one teacher spoke
exclusively English, whereas the other teacher spoke Dutch. At daycare B one teacher
spoke both English and Dutch, whereas the other teacher spoke Dutch only.
A total of 93 recordings were made, 43 of which were recorded at an English-centered
daycares with English as the base language of instruction, and 50 of which were recorded
at a Dutch-centered daycare with Dutch as the base language of instruction. The recordings
added up to 900 min of transcribed speech, of which each daycare’s recording resulted
in 150 min of transcribed material. The recordings were administered in the morning
time, where video and audio recordings were carried out and included the interaction
between teachers and children. All recordings were comparable with regard to context
(fruit/snack time, circle time, free play, lunch break) as well as one semi-structured activity.
This semi-structured activity included the reading from the book Hier woon ik (‘This is
where I live’). Due to the limited amount of text, teachers were stimulated to construct a
story themselves as well as encourage children to actively participate in storytelling.
The data was collected in two measurement rounds. Some of the data was collected in
three daycares with a teacher who spoke English to the children as their main language,
henceforth considered English observations. These were recorded in the first measurement
round at daycare A, B, and C. The remaining data was collected in three daycares with a
teacher who spoke Dutch to the children as their main language, henceforth considered
Dutch observations. The latter were recorded about six months later during the second
measurement round at daycare D, E, and F. No instructions were given to the daycare teach-
ers that would have altered the spontaneous interactions between teachers and children,
in order to capture the natural conversations between children and between children and
staff as they occurred.
2.2. Participants
In total, 70 children participated in the observations of all Dutch-English bilingual
daycares. 35 of these children visited the three daycares in which the Dutch observations
were obtained, of which 18 children (51%) were boys. Mean age of the children in the
Dutch observations was 2 years and 9 months (SD = 5 months; min-max = 2;1–3;11). The
remaining 35 children visited the three daycares in which the English observations were
obtained, of which 15 children were boys (43%). Mean age of the children in the English
observations was 2 years and 9 months (SD = 10 months; min-max = 1;2–3;11).
An overview of the children’s home languages, as assessed with a caregiver question-
naire, can be found below in Table 2.
As can be seen in this table, about one third of the children in the Dutch observations
and about half of the children in the English observations came from Dutch-only homes.
Only 3 children in each observation came from English-only homes. Another third of the
children in the Dutch observations and only 2 children from the English observations heard
English and another language in the home. Most of the remaining children (5 children
from the Dutch observation and 6 children from the English observation) were exposed to
a language other than Dutch or English in their home environment. As for the language
backgrounds of the children (besides English and Dutch), various other languages were
reported, as can be seen in Table 2.
Languages 2022,7, 274 8 of 28
Table 2. Children’s home languages across the Dutch and English observations.
Children’s Home Languages Dutch Observations
(n= 35)
English Observations
(n= 35)
Sum
(n= 70)
English only 3 3 6
Dutch only 11 18 29
English + Dutch 2 2 4
English + Other language 10 2
12
Chinese (n= 2), French (n= 2),
Russian (n= 2), Greek (n= 1),
Polish (n= 1), Swedish (n= 1),
Amharic (n= 1), Telugu (n= 1),
Spanish (n= 1)
Dutch + Other language 1 2 3
Greek (n= 2), French (n= 1)
Other language only 5 6
11
Greek (n= 2), Slowakian (n= 2),
French (n= 1), Japanese (n= 1),
Romanian (n= 1), Chinese (n= 1),
Hebrew (n= 1), Moroccan (n= 1),
Turkish (n= 1)
Two other languages 3 1
4
French and German (n= 3),
Russian and French (n= 1)
Not known 0 1 1
Table 2shows, furthermore, that the majority of children across observations (n= 54;
77.1%) acquired at least one of the languages spoken in daycare also in the home environ-
ment. Only 4 children (5.7%) acquired both target languages also in the home environment
and were thus acquiring neither of the daycare languages as a second language. Children
could see the camera recorders, but we cannot be certain they realized they were being
recorded because of their very young ages. No specific instructions were given to the
children, and daycare staff was instructed to act as they normally would, enabling us to
record natural interactions. Written consent was obtained for all children in the current
sample from their caregivers prior to the recordings. Children were given a small gift for
their participation.
2.3. Analyses
Caregivers’ proficiency and children’s home language input situations were assessed
using the MIND parental questionnaire, an electronic questionnaire that is based on of a
set of existing questionnaires (ALDeQ, Paradis et al. 2010; Bilingual Language Experience
Calculator, BiLEC, Unsworth 2013; Language Mixing Scale, Byers-Heinlein 2013). In
addition to information on the language development of the child and demographic
information, parents reported, amongst others, on the languages they spoke to their children
and how often they spoke each language.
Research assistants with (near-)native language skills of Dutch and English transcribed
the audio recordings and video recordingsof the free-play sessions at the bilingual daycares.
The sessions were transcribed in CLAN (Computerized Language Analysis, MacWhinney
2000) using the CHAT-transcription format. Both the children’s and teachers’ utterances
were coded for language of the utterance as well as other aspects, such as the educational
goal of the utterance (e.g., modeling, eliciting). However, we here report only on the
code-switches of the children.
The first author coded the code-switches according to motivation (social, metalinguis-
tic, lexical, conversational) and then categorized each switch as one of the types presented in
Languages 2022,7, 274 9 of 28
the Introduction (see Table 1). After she had coded all code-switches, a second coder coded
part of the data, to establish interrater reliability. This second coder was trained on other
code-switching data within the same project that were not used for the present study and
then independently coded a randomly chosen subset of the utterances for code-switching
types (n= 72; 43.9% of the data). Inter-rater agreement was very high (93%). In case of
disagreement, the coders discussed the utterance until agreement was reached.
The teachers’ and the children’s utterances were coded for which language was
used (i.e., Dutch-only, English-only, mixed, uncodable), following previous studies and
guidelines (e.g., Genesee et al. 1995;Jisa 2000;Nicoladis and Secco 2000). Specifically,
utterances were considered as being English if all the lexical items in it were English and
an utterance was considered as being Dutch if all the lexical items in the utterance were
Dutch. If an utterance contained morphological or lexical elements from both English and
Dutch it was considered a mixed utterance.
Some utterances required different judgment. Specifically, single-word items such as
kinship terms and proper nouns (Mama,Papa,Jumbo), interjections (Okay,Yeah) and ono-
matopoeic words (wau,meow) can be attributed to both languages. If these items occurred
in isolation, these items were excluded from the analysis. Some of these onomatopoeic
words could be identified as Dutch or English, for example the onomatopoeic terms wuff in
English or woef in Dutch. If these types of items were found in a multi-word utterance, they
were coded in the language of the rest of the utterance. Kinship terms and interjections in
multi-word utterances were counted as the language of the utterance. If utterances could
not be identified as belonging to one of the two languages, e.g., stand-alone morphemes,
they were assigned the label ‘uncodable’. Repetitions of utterances either by the same child
or by other speakers were not coded. Both intersentential code-switching (across utterances)
and intrasentential code-switching (within utterances) were taken into consideration.
When classifying the code-switches in observations with group interactions (with
at least two children and one teacher present), we considered the last 5 utterances in
conversation to determine a code-switch. In group interactions the discourse is more
dynamic and thus engaging. The group interactions have a higher number of speakers
with both peer-to-peer interactions and peer-to-teacher interactions. Therefore the child
has a higher probability to speak, in comparison to the one-on-one interactions with only a
child and a teacher present.
When analyzing code-switches in observations with individual peer-to-teacher inter-
actions, we considered the last 10 utterances in conversation to determine a code-switch.
This was due to the high number of utterances that the teacher continuously presented
towards the child. In addition to the fewer number of speakers and high amount of speech
from the teacher this discourse can also be considered less dynamic than the discourse
in a group interaction. Altogether we recognized peer-to-teacher interaction as a type of
interaction with lower probability for the child to speak than the group interactions. This
way we could ensure that even if other participants were present and engaging in the
conversation, a potential code-switch would be recorded. That is, by taking into account
the last 10 utterances and not 5 utterances in the peer-to-teacher interactions, we could
ensure that a longer stretch of conversation on the teachers’ end would not inhibit recording
the last children’s utterance. Code-switches from or to another language other than Dutch
and English were excluded from the analysis.
3. Results
In the following, we will describe which types of switches occurred in our data, and
then group them in terms of the motivations underlying code-switching in multilingual
children’s interactions at bilingual daycare. Before we present the results for the code-
switching types, we provide a general description of the data. Specifically, we briefly
address how many codeswitches were found in the respective observations, how many
could be analyzed, amongst others, to provide some context to our more qualitative analysis
of the types of code-switches that were attested.
Languages 2022,7, 274 10 of 28
3.1. General Description of the Data
Of the total number of code-switches found (n= 332), 164 could be coded and analyzed
(49.4%). Of the 168 excluded switches (50.6%), 58 were from the Dutch observations and
110 from the English observations. These switches were excluded because they did not
meet the inclusion criteria. Specifically, they involved variants of ‘okay’ and ‘yes’ in one-
word-utterances for which it was not possible to determine whether they were English or
Dutch (n= 14 in Dutch observations; n= 43 in English observations), repetitions of the
child’s own or someone else’s utterance (n= 43 in Dutch observations; n= 62 in English
observations), or unintelligible speech (n= 0 in Dutch observations; n= 2 in English
observations). Finally, code-switches to kinship terms such as ‘mama’ were also excluded
(n= 1 in Dutch observations; n= 3 in English observations). Out of the 164 code-switches
that could be analyzed, 59 occurred in the Dutch observations (36%) and 105 (64%) occurred
in the English observations.
We analyzed the frequency of code-switches per child in order to investigate if code-
switching was distributed evenly across children or limited to only a few children. Of
the total number of children across both types of observations (n= 70), we found that
code-switches were produced by 31 children (44%; NL observation n= 14). As shown in
Table 3, the majority of children produced five or fewer code-switches (n= 23; 74%), and
only around one third of the participants showed six or more code-switches (n= 8; 26%).
Table 3. Number of code-switches in the Dutch and English observations.
Frequency of Code-Switches None 1–5 Switches 6–10 Switches 11–15 Switches >15 Switches
English observations 18 12 1 3 1
Dutch observations 21 11 2 1 0
Total (n= 70) 39 23 3 4 1
As can be seen from this table, there was a substantial number of children who did
not even code-switch once during the observations (n= 39, 56%). A slightly lower number
switched between 1 and 15 times (n= 30, 43%). Only one child code-switched in over
15 utterances, producing no less than 33 switches. No clear differences are found between
the Dutch and English observations, except that the number of children who switched
1 to 5 times was somewhat higher in the English observations (n= 12, 17%) than Dutch
observations (n= 11, 16%). Overall, however, the distribution of code-switching frequency
was relatively balanced across the two types of observation, suggesting that code-switching
in children attending English-Dutch bilingual daycare is not specific to one of the two base
languages, Dutch or English.
3.2. Types of Code-Switches
With regard to the types of code-switches, seven types of code-switches were found in
the data. These could be categorized as belonging to one of four larger categories signaling
the motivation for a child to produce a code-switch: social motivations, metalinguistic
motivations, lexical motivations, and conversational motivations. Below, we present each
of the categories and the corresponding types of switches in turn, giving examples for each.
In our description, we relate the code-switch to any contextual or background information
known, such as information about the setting, the utterances of the child’s interlocutor, or a
child’s home language situation, so as to pinpoint the type of switch as much as possible.
Three columns are presented per example, of which the first row identifies the speaker.
Teacher’s individual code is represented by a T in their name code, e.g., BT1, whereas
children have a code without a T (e.g., B1). Translations from Dutch to English are presented
underneath the utterance. In addition, several comments may be given in brackets about the
speech. These comments include the following: repetition, unintelligible items, interjections,
Languages 2022,7, 274 11 of 28
incomplete utterances, false start/self-correction, as well as explanatory comments (e.g.,
shows banana).
For privacy reasons names mentioned by children or teachers were made anonymous
or marked as name@x.
We first present an overview of the types of switches that were found in the data (see
below), with an example for each type. Note that Dutch elements are marked in bold while
English elements are in regular font.
For definitions of the types, see Table 1above.
1. Accommodation of addressees’ preferences
Example from A6: AT1: That’s also green.
A6: Yes.
A6: Eh dit blue!
‘Uh this blue!’
2. Teacher insistence
Example from B5: B5: Weg was.
‘Gone was.’
BT1: Weg was.
‘Gone was.’
BT1: Ho.
‘Huh.’
B6: Komkommer is weg.
‘Cucumber is gone.’
BT1: Oh and how do we call it in English?
B5: Cumcummer.
3. Metalinguistic insights
Example from B5: B5: A chield.
BT1: Yes there’s a child.
B5: Uh een mens.
‘Uh a human.’
4. Lack of translation—word does not exist in the other language
Example from A9: A9: I do have a pepernootje.
‘I do have a pepper nut. (small speculaas cookie)’
5. Emphasis
Example from C1: C1: Daar is papa!
‘There is dad!’
CT1: Hier nog een keer J.
‘Here one more time, J.’
C1: Look!
6. Shift in topic
Example from B4: B4: Daar (unintelligible) heel goed
‘There (unintelligible) very good.’
BT1: Goed zo.
‘Well done.’
BT1: Daar is de haan.
‘There is the rooster.’
BT1: En de haan die zegt . . . ?
‘And the rooster says . .. ?’
B4: Wake wake.
7. Discourse marker
Example from C11: C11: That’s wel jacket.
’That is indeed jacket.’
In total we identified 164 code-switches that fit our inclusion criteria across both the
English-centered and Dutch-centered daycares. For an overview of the code-switching
types and motivations found in the data see Table 4below.
Languages 2022,7, 274 12 of 28
Table 4. Overview of the factors underlying code-switching in bilingual children.
Motivation Type Number of Code-Switches Found in the Data
Social
Teacher/parental insistence (Lanvers 2001) 7
Accommodation of addressees’ preferences (Davidiak 2010;
Ervin-Tripp and Reyes 2005;Genesee et al. 1996;Lanvers
2001;Lanza 1997;Paradis and Nicoladis 2007 )
52
Metalinguistic Metalinguistic insights (Gort 2012) 14
Lexical
Lack of translation-word does not exist in the other
language (Cheng 2003;Davidiak 2010;Dolitsky 2000;
Ervin-Tripp and Reyes 2005;Gort 2012)
7
Emphasis (Cheng 2003;Gort 2012) 8
Conversational
Shift in topic, person or conversational form (Cheng 2003;
Davidiak 2010;Gort 2012;Halmari and Smith 1994;Kyratzis
2010;Lanvers 2001;Paugh 2005;Reyes 2004)
12
Discourse marker (Ervin-Tripp and Reyes 2005;Gort 2012;
Moodley 2007;Reyes 2004)9
To summarize Table 4above, the following code-switching types were found: teacher
insistence and accommodation of addressees’ preferences (social motivation), metalinguis-
tic insight (metalinguistic motivation), lack of translation and emphasis (lexical motivation),
shift in topic, and discourse marker (conversational motivation). In addition, there were
also unidentified code-switches.
3.2.1. Social Motivation
Socially-motivated types of code-switches relate to the speakers’ own preferences, re-
flections and relations, or relate to the speakers’ addressee or group preferences, reflections
and relations (see Cheng 2003;Davidiak 2010;Genesee et al. 1996;Lanza 1997). They are
considered ‘social’ in the sense that they are driven by the immediate social context. Two
types belonging to this category were found in our data: accommodation of the addressee’s
preferences and teacher insistence.
Accommodation of the Addressee’s Preferences
The type of code-switch accommodation of addressee’s preferences can be defined
as accommodating the language preferences of the addressee, in this case another child
or teacher. This code-switching type is without any insistence from the addressee, thus
without direct elicitation from the part of the addressee. It is the type with the second most
code-switches (n= 52, 31.7%) in our data. An example is given in (1). Note that grammar
in this example, as well as the remaining examples, may deviate from the target grammars
of Dutch and English.
1. A6: Is dat voor baby’s.
‘Is this for baby’s?’
A4: Zelfde! (shows banana)
‘Same!’ (shows banana)
AT1: Same.
AT1: Hmm.
AT1: Same banana.
A6: We all the same.
Child A6 learns Russian and French in the home environment. She and another child
A4 are talking to the teacher about bananas. In the first utterance child A6 speaks Dutch
to the teacher and the child. When the teacher AT1 continues in English, A6 eventually
switches to English to accommodate the language preference from A6. The fact that the
final English utterance by A6 does not contain a verb further supports the notion that
Languages 2022,7, 274 13 of 28
English is not a language she is very proficient in, but the language in use to continue the
conversational flow with teacher AT1.
Similarly, in the second example below, child A10 accommodates her language choice
in the final utterance to the addressee, another child in this case:
2. A10: Me house.
AT3: Dat misschien bedoel je.
‘Maybe that’s what you mean.’
A3: Opa en oma wonen op (unintelligible).
‘Grandpa and grandma live on (unintelligible).’
AT3: Oma en opa wonen wel in Amsterdam.
‘Grandma and grandpa do live in Amsterdam.’
AT3: Maar niet in dezelfde huis als jouw huis he?
‘But not in the same house as yours, right?’
AT2: Ja S.
‘Yes S.’
A10: I ga[at] deze woon in the house.
‘I go[es] this into living in the house.’
Child A10 learns Hebrew in the home environment. Whereas we find two intrasen-
tential code-switches in the last utterance of this fragment, we will be focusing on the
first code-switch from the last sentence, where A10 switches from the English word “I”
to Dutch.
Prior to this switch both teachers AT2 and AT3 spoke Dutch, except that A10 in the
beginning produced a short utterance in English. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the
addressees’ preferred language is Dutch, which is the language teacher A10 is engaging in
conversation with. Since the child started in English, yet both teachers converse in English,
A10 switches to Dutch to show her intention to talk to both of her teachers in their preferred
languages. The perceived reluctance of A10 in this example to speak Dutch (as she starts
and finishes in English) further supports the notion that A10 is accommodating AT2 and
AT3 with his language choice to speak Dutch.
Teacher Insistence
Teacher insistence is the second type that belongs to the socially motivated code-
switches. This type is defined as a reaction to the teacher’s attitude towards the children’s
language choice, similar to parental insistence towards their children in other studies, see
Lanvers (2001) or peer insistence towards other children, see Reyes (2004). This code-
switching type involves a direct command from the teacher directed at the child and thus
is different from the code-switching type of accommodation of addressee’s preferences,
where no such command was at stake.
It is a code-switching type with a small number of code-switches (n= 7, 4.3%). This
undoubtedly relates to the fact that many instances of teacher insistence resulted in a
repetition of utterances that the teacher provided and were therefore excluded from analysis.
A third example is given below:
3. B5: Weet ik niet.
‘I don’t know.’
BT1: What do we have here?
BT1: Wat hebben we hier?
‘What do we have here?’
BT1: Hoe noemen we dit?
‘How do we call this?’
BT1: How do we (direct speech)
B6: Appel.
‘Apple.’
BT1: An a (false start/self correction) can you say it in English
please?
B6: Apple.
Languages 2022,7, 274 14 of 28
Child B6 learns Dutch in the home environment. It is therefore very likely that her
Dutch proficiency is at a more advanced level than her English proficiency. From this
conversational extract we can see that the teacher is presenting an item and asking for the
particular lexeme that describes the item both in English and Dutch. Child B6 gives the
teacher the Dutch translation for ‘apple’, whereupon the teacher asks for the translational
equivalent, thus the translation in English. Child B6 then presents the English translation
and thus code-switches inter-sententially from Dutch to English. Since B6 code-switches
after a direct question from the teacher and not, in comparison to the type of accommodation
of the addressees’ preference, because she wanted to adjust her language choice with the
preferred language choice from the addressee. Teachers have in daycare and schools also
an authoritative figure, that may have played a role in the dynamics of code-switching
due to a teachers’ command. We will further explore these hierarchical dynamics in the
Discussion section.
Another example is presented in 4. below. Here, instead of asking for a direct transla-
tion, the teacher is asking directly to repeat the question in the other language:
4. B9: Mag ik nog een boterham?
‘Can I have another sandwich?’
BT1: Ja.
‘Yes.’
BT1: Kan je ‘t ook in het Engels vragen?
‘Can you also ask this in English?’
B9: Mag ik ook een (unintelligible).
‘Can I also a (unintelligible).’
BT1: Wat zeg je?
‘What are you saying?’
B9: Mag ik nog een sandwich?
‘Can I have another sandwich?’
Child B9 wants to have another sandwich and asks for it in Dutch. Teacher BT1
then wants him to ask this particular question in English instead without giving a reason.
Child B9 thus starts his question in Dutch, but then switches from Dutch to English within
their utterance’. Here, too, the child does not switch because he wants to adjust his
language choice to the addressees’ preferred language choice but in response to a direct
and commanding question by the teacher.
3.2.2. Metalinguistic Motivation
Metalinguistically motivated types of code-switches relate to the “learner[‘s] interest
in and knowledge about the relationship between their two languages” (Gort 2012, p.
57). This code-switching category indicates the child’s awareness of the interconnection
between the child’s languages and the resulting reflection on it. In our data, we found just
one type of switch falling under this category: metalinguistic insight.
Metalinguistic Insight
The code-switch type metalinguistic insight relates to the child’s own awareness of his
bilingual competence, which includes making use of translational equivalents when they
code-switch. Metalinguistic comments can be defined as the child’s awareness of linguistic
processes (see also Cheng 2003;Gort 2012).
This type of code-switching is the third largest identified code-switching type (n= 14,
8.5%). Consider the fifth example:
Languages 2022,7, 274 15 of 28
5. BT1: Heel goed.
‘Really good.’
BT1: Openhaard heet dat.
‘It’s called fireplace.’
B99: Openhaard
‘Fireplace’
BT1: Openhaard
‘Fireplace’
BT1: Ja.
‘Yes.’
B4: Ook fire.
‘Also fire.’
In this example, the teacher is engaging with two children, B99 and the target child
B4. The teacher is naming the Dutch word for fireplace (‘openhaard’), child B99 repeats
it and the teacher confirms it. Next, B4 engages and mentions the English word ‘fire’-a
semantically close word or perhaps, the child’s word for a rough translation for fireplace.
She starts her sentence with “ook” (‘also’) and then names the English word. B4 thus seems
aware of the English (approximate) equivalent of this lexeme and through this translation
she expresses her metalinguistic knowledge of the two languages.
A second example with several intersentential and intrasentential code-switches is
found in Example 6 below, in which child B5, who learns Dutch in the home environment,
recognizes her ability to connect several translational equivalents during freeplay:
6. BT5: Do you watch Thomas on television?
BT5: On TV when you’re at home?
BT5: Kijk je thuis ook naar Thomas?
‘Do you also watch Thomas at home?’
B4: ‘k heb nog meer zus.
‘I have even more sister.’
BT5: Op TV?
‘On TV?’
B5: Een cat.
‘A cat.’
B5: Een kat is een cat.
‘A cat is a cat.’
B5: En een en een hond is een dog.
‘And a and a dog is a dog.’
B5: En Engels is een kat in z’n nek.
‘And English is a cat in his neck.’
In this fragment, the teacher is engaging in a conversation with B4 when B5 interrupts
them to present them with their knowledge of translational equivalents of various animals.
She rightfully points out the translations for cat (Dutch ‘kat’) and dog (Dutch ‘hond’) and
further comments on these translations. What we find is six intrasentential and intersenten-
tial code-switches and a child showing the ability to connect her two languages through
translational equivalents, indicating the child’s awareness of this metalinguistic knowledge.
3.2.3. Lexical Motivation
The second category of motivations found in our data relates to code-switching due
to lexical constraints. This may include lexical constraints within the speakers’ sphere of
influence, such as a lexical preference or lack of certain lexemes in the speakers’ vocabulary,
or broader lexical constraints out of the speakers’ sphere of influence. These may include
situations where some concepts are represented better in one language than the other or a
family, group or community uses specific (loan)words in their repertoire. In our data, two
types belonging to this category were found: lack of translation and emphasis.
Languages 2022,7, 274 16 of 28
Lack of Translation—Word Does Not Exist in the Other Language
The code-switching type of lack of translation (word does not exist in the other
language) belongs to the lexically-motivated code-switches. This code-switching type is
used for switches involving conventionalized lexemes, or loanwords, that either do not
have a suitable translation in the other language or convey a concept uniquely associated
to one language (Cheng 2003;Gort 2012;Lanvers 2001). In total, 7 items were counted for
this code-switching type (4.3%). See Example 7 for an illustration. In this example, child A6
switches from English to Dutch, using the name Sinterklaas (‘Saint Nicolas’). Sinterklaas
refers to a Dutch holiday period from mid-November until December 5th and ends with
Dutch festivities on December 5th, where children typically receive their gifts. Sinterklaas
is not to be confused with Santa Claus, who brings presents over Christmas. Since the role
of the saint and the festive period are specific to the Dutch situation, there is no suitable
translation in English:
7. AT1: Juice.
AT1: Name@x?
AT1: Would you like juice or water?
A4: Juice.
AT1: Juice.
A6: This van Sinterklaas!
‘This from Sinterklaas (the Dutch Saint Nicolas)!’
Child A6 learns Russian and French in the home environment. On that basis it would
be fair to assume that the language proficiency level in both English and Dutch-both spoken
only at the daycare-should be somewhat equal. Teacher AT1 is having a conversation with
A4 when A6 interrupts them to show them something received during Sinterklaas. The
child A6 thus switches to Dutch, including a preposition prior to naming the term Sinterklaas,
in order to rightfully express this concept to their peers and teachers.
In Example 8 below, child C11 references a character from a children’s animation series.
He therefore switches to Dutch:
8. CT1: There’s fruit here.
CT1: You finished name@x?
C11: No.
CT1: No.
CT3: Drinken?
‘Drink?’
C11: That is my Bob de Bouwer.
‘That is my Bob the Builder.’
In contrast to Example 7, in Example 8 above we find child C11 engaging in a conver-
sation with two teachers (among others), teachers CT1 and CT3. From the example it does
not become clear if the teachers are talking to C11 or to (an)other child(ren). Nevertheless,
at some point, C11, who learns only Dutch at home, presents his ‘Bob de Bouwer’ (“Bob
The Builder”) to the teachers. Within that phrase, he switches to Dutch, an intrasentential
code-switch.
In addition to the fact that C11 learns Dutch at home, the phrase Bob de Bouwer is a
proper Dutch noun that does have an English equivalent (‘Bob the Builder’) that the child
might not know, as with proper names of people or cities. The context this child watches
‘Bob de Bouwer’ in Dutch or plays with these toys in may play a role here, and we cannot
exclude the possibility that the children are not aware of the translational equivalent, as
with ‘Sinterklaas’ in the example above, which truly did not have translational equivalent.
Thus, with this phrase he expresses a concept unique to his experience, a concept that he
can only express with a code-switch.
Emphasis
The type emphasis is used for cases where a child code-switches in order to highlight a
message, for example with the use of translational equivalents as we will see below. Bilingual
Languages 2022,7, 274 17 of 28
children may use emphasis to attract attention from teachers or peers. With 8 instances of
this type (4.9%) it is one of the smaller code-switching types. Consider Example 9:
9. AT3: Jouw mama papa ook.
‘Your mom and dad, too.’
AT3: En wat is dit nou?
‘And what is it now?’
A14: Groot.
‘Big.’
AT3: Wij blijven wel zitten.
‘We will be sitting for a while.’
AT3: Want dan kunnen de anderen kinderen het ook zien.
‘Because then the other children can see it, too.’
A10: Kijk look there is a bath.
‘Look, look, there is a bath.’
In Example 9, teacher AT3 is reading a book out loud to some children. A14 and A10 are
engaging with teacher AT3 about the book. In the very last utterance, A10 uses an intrasentential
code-switch and switches from Dutch to English. A10’s home language is Hebrew, so we
can assume a rather equal level of language proficiency in Dutch and English, given that the
daycare center she visits has a 50/50 distribution of Dutch and English input. Nevertheless,
AT10 starts her utterance with ‘kijk’ (“look”) and then uses the translational equivalent in
English right away. As she knows the translational equivalent of the word, we can exclude
any lexical constraints. To attract the attention of the teacher, she uses the code-switch with the
translational equivalent of ‘kijk (“look”) and then continues in English. Since we can exclude
any lexical constraints as well as any social motivation as none of the teachers or peers are
engaging in a conversation in English at this moment, this code-switching example seems to
be produced to put emphasis on the child’s utterance, to draw the teacher’s attention.
For another example, consider Example 10, in which a child tries to acquire the
attention of another child:
10. CT1: Blik!
‘Look!’
CT2: Blik?
‘Look?’
CT1: En de?
‘And the?’
C3: L.
CT2: Stoffer en blik!
‘Dustpan and look.’
C3: L, look.
CT2: Alsjeblieft.
‘Please.’
C3: Kijk!
‘Look!’
In Example 10, C3 is trying to acquire the attention of L. C3, who is only exposed to
Dutch in the home environment, wants to acquire the attention of CT1, which is why he
keeps saying L. For privacy reasons the name of CT1, which starts with an L., is not written
down here. While C3 is asking for CT1’s attention, he tries many different ways to acquire
her attention. First, he uses her name. After only CT2 replies, he uses her name and the
English word look. As everyone around him speaks Dutch, he hopes to receive her attention
right away with the language switch, but again, only CT2 answers. This is interesting
because CT1’s mother tongue is also Dutch. For this reason, it seems unlikely that C3 is
code-switching to accommodate CT1’s language preferences and even, if he did, the main
function still seems to attract attention. After even the language switch does not have the
intended result, he exclaims kijk (‘look’) and switches again to Dutch. The language switch
here involves an attention-seeking element and seems therefore used to create emphasis on
the message C3 is trying to convey.
Languages 2022,7, 274 18 of 28
3.2.4. Conversational Motivation
The final category of motivations for code-switching involves conversationally-motivated
types. This category relates to discourse characteristics of children’s code-switching, and
involves factors at the level of discourse and syntax and, in some circumstances also on
other functions, such as socio-pragmatic or socio-linguistic circumstances, which thus may
overlap with other code-switch motivations. In our data, two types of switches were found
for which a conversational motivation seemed at play: topic shift and discourse marker.
Topic Shift
The code-switching type of topic shift is defined as choosing a language due to a
shift in topic in conversation (Gort 2012;Lanvers 2001;Reyes 2004). This code-switching
type has also been labeled as ‘quotational or topical switches’ by Lanvers (2001). Our data
showed 12 instances of topic shift (7.3%).
In the example below, a shift in topic motivates the child to switch from Dutch
to English.
11. BT1: Hm ok.
‘Mh ok.
B6: Wie wie?
‘Who who?’
B5: Loekie.
BT1: Loekie.
B5: Dus dan mag ze bij ons in de slaapkamer liggen.
‘Then she may lay with us in the bedroom.’
B5: Als ze wil.
‘If she wants.’
BT1: Ah ok.
BT1: What a terrible sight.
BT1: T. yells with all his myth.
BT1: There’s a (incomplete utterance)?
B5: Shark in the park!
Teacher BT1, child B5 and other children are participating in the morning circle time
activity. The first utterances by the teacher BT1 are directed towards the children B6 and
B5. From the utterance what a terrible sight onwards the utterances are directed towards the
group. They are about to start with their morning rituals which includes the singing of a
song called shark in the park. The teacher prompts the song by saying There’s a
. . .
?and
waits for an answer. Child B5 is quick and immediately exclaims the suggested answer and
beginning of the morning song. We thus find an intersentential switch, from her very first
utterance directed to BT1 to switching to English in order to participate in the morning
ritual. She therefore switches because of a shift in topic and thus to avoid a breakdown in
communication.
In the second example child B6 refers to his toys at home in English, while then
switching back to Dutch, the base language of the conversation:
12. B6: Ja
‘Yes’
BT1: Echt waar?
‘That’s really true?’
B6: Baby heb ik ook.
‘I also have baby.’
BT1: Wauw.
‘Wow.’
BT1: Bof jij even!
‘Lucky you!’
B6: Baby horse playmo heb ik.
‘I have a baby horse playmo.’
Languages 2022,7, 274 19 of 28
Child B6 hears both Dutch and English in the home environment. In her first utterance
she talks about a baby in Dutch, after she receives praise from BT1 (Bof jij even, ‘lucky you’)
she switches to English and talks about her toy. After naming her toy she switches back
to Dutch. This example demonstrates the experience B6 had in the home environment
in English with her toy, before switching back to Dutch. Since she hears both Dutch and
English in both the home and daycare environment, it is to be expected that there is a
high likelihood she is able to translate it if she wants to. However, the language that she
connects to her play at home is very likely the English language, which might explain
why she switches to English. However, it is important to point out that this example has
a degree of overlap with the lexical category lack of translation. In fact, in the absence of
detailed information about the current children’s lexical knowledge, we cannot exclude the
possibility that the child is unaware of the potential translational equivalent and therefore
uses the English variant.
Discourse Marker
Discourse markers are defined as “linguistic elements that do not necessarily add to
the content of the utterance but act as markers of the context in which the utterance is
taking place” (qtd. in Reyes 2004, p. 85). The code-switching type of discourse maker
encompasses switches that involve such a marker from another language. In our data, we
attested 9 instances of this type (5.5%).
In the example 13 below we can find the Dutch discourse marker zo (loosely translat-
able as ‘in that manner’) that motivates the child to switch from English to Dutch. Zo is a
focus particle to assert that an act is finished. It is often used in isolation when the speaker
asserts that some act is carried out, as a marker of completeness (Lensink et al. 2018), as in
the example in 13.
13. AT3: That’s yours.
ACS: (unintelligible)
A13: (unintelligible)
AT3: Can you put on your coat please name@x?
A13: Can you put it on?
A13: Zo! (throws coat on the floor)
‘Like this!’ (throws coat on the floor)
The Dutch word zo is used by A13 to describe how she wants the coat to be put on.
Instead of describing it in English or saying that he wants the coat to be put on in this
particular way, he uses Dutch zo.
In Example 14 below, child C11 incorporates the particle wel (‘indeed’) into her
otherwise English utterance. Wel is one of the most frequently used particles in Dutch
(Hogeweg 2009;Turco et al. 2014). It marks polarity, and is used as a counterpart to the
negator niet ‘not’, to assert that something WAS the case (Turco et al. 2014):
14. C11: Mine
C11: Dat van mij.
‘That’s mine.’
C11: That’s mine.
CT1: Can I have the jacket please? (The other child hands CT1 the jacket.)
C11: That’s wel jacket.
‘That is indeed jacket.’
The teacher and C11 are in a group setting and planning to go outside. The teacher
CT1 asks to have a jacket, whereupon the child C11 uses the Dutch discourse particle wel to
emphasize that it is indeed a/his jacket. Since no English translation seems to capture the
exact same meaning, this type is very similar to the lack of translation type above. Actually,
one might argue that they are a subset of this earlier type. However, as they involve a
clearly demarcated category of particles that operate on the discourse level, we here treated
code-switches involving discourse markers as a separate type, falling within the broader
category of conversationally motivated switches.
Languages 2022,7, 274 20 of 28
Finally, our data contained switches with the Dutch focus particle ook ‘also’ for which
a partly overlapping English counterpart is available. In comparison to English, the Dutch
word ook may not only have an additive meaning only but can also have other functions
such as neutralizing a contrast (Schmitz et al. 2018) or mark politeness (Vismans 1994, p.
65; Elffers 1992, p. 73). For an illustration, see Example 15 below.
15. A10: Me ook.
‘Me, too.’
AT3: Jij ook S.
‘You also, S.’
A10: Wij ook.
‘We also.’
AT3: Ja.
‘Yes.’
A10: Ik ook.
‘Me, too.’
A10: Ook.
‘Also.’
A10: Also bed.
In Example 15, child A10 is expressing that she also wants to go to bed. The Dutch
particle is polysemous (see Elffers 1992;Schmitz et al. 2018;Vismans 1994 among others)
and very frequent (see Lensink et al. 2018) in Dutch. It is possible that this high frequency
in Dutch stimulates the use of Dutch in this case.
3.2.5. Other
A relatively large number of code-switches (n= 55, 33.5%) could not be classified into
one of the types presented in previous studies and literature (see Table 1in the Introduction).
We present some examples here in order to illustrate the difficulty with categorizing code-
switches into strict categories and to show the vast diversity and originality that comes
with the range of types and functions of children’s code-switching. See, for example, the
fragment in Example 16.
16. AT1: What do you see?
AT1: Name@x you also want to see?
AT1: Ok come.
AT1: Name@x is gonna read with us.
AT1: One here and one here.
A6: A twie, we twie.
A two, we two.
Child A6 learns Russian and French in the home environment. He is engaging with
AT1 about a common topic and a book they are all going to read. The message from A6
herself remains unclear.
Another switch we could not classify is provided in Example 17:
17. BT1: Slaap je samen met de zus op je kamer?
‘Do you sleep in your room with the sister?’
BT1: Dat is gezellig.
‘That is cosy.’
BT1: En L.
‘And L.’
BT1: Slaap jij alleen op de kamer?
‘Do you sleep alone in a room?’
BT1: Of met je broer?
‘Or with your brother?’
B9: Only met mijn mijn (repetition) only zusje.
‘Only with my my (repetition) only sister.’
Languages 2022,7, 274 21 of 28
Child B9 is exposed to German and French in the home environment. His constant
switching between languages in the last utterance might be his way of trying to accommo-
date BT1’s language preferences; thus, to speak Dutch. Alternatively, he might not know
the English words or be exposed to a higher frequency of certain words in English such
that these words are retrieved more easily.
3.3. Data Summary
The majority of code-switches were socially motivated. One could argue that children
even as young as two to three years of age have already gained an understanding of the
social situation around them and especially the interlocutor they are engaging with, since
both code-switching types include an interlocutor interacting with the child. However,
Lanvers (2001) who investigated bilingual children in a similar age range of the children in
our study (two to three years of age) also found exactly the same code-switching types with
a social motivation. This might suggest that the other socially-motivated code-switching
types develop at a later stage.
Metalinguistic insight was present in the children as well, suggesting that some
bilingual children of this age already are beginning to or are becoming aware of the
connection between their two languages. Literal translation as a metalinguistic motivation
was not found in the data, which may be due to the fact that children are still acquiring
their multiple languages and thus may not have the vocabulary to do so.
Regarding lexical motivations, we found the code-switching types lack of translation
and emphasis in the data. The former code-switching type describes the use of code-
switching to express a concept uniquely associated with one language. Since we did not
have a direct lexical measure, such as receptive or productive vocabulary test outcomes of
the children in both languages, identifying potential dominance or gap-filling strategies,
or lexical preferences, was difficult. We address this issue more in the Discussion section.
In addition, we found the code-switching type emphasis, which was used by the children
in a very precise manner to receive attention, often from a teacher. In the code-switching
examples that fell under this category, children often knew the translational equivalent, but
decided to switch, nonetheless.
Finally, two different code-switching types of conversational motivations were found.
We did not expect to find multiple conversationally-oriented code-switching types as the
children were between two and three years of age and considerably young in comparison
to studies with older bilingual children, which found a broader range of conversationally-
oriented code-switching types, presumably due to better-developed pragmatic abilities
(see Cheng 2003;Cromdal 2004;Davidiak 2010;Gort 2012;Moodley 2007;Reyes 2004; see
also Ervin-Tripp and Reyes 2005), but see Lanvers (2001) and Paugh (2005) for work with
younger children.
All code-switching utterances can be found in Appendix B.
4. Discussion
In this study, we presented a qualitative analysis of the code-switches produced by a
relatively large and heterogeneous group of bilingual preschoolers who attended Dutch and
English daycare. We investigated the types of code-switches that these children produced,
and categorized these code-switches in terms of children’s motivations for code-switching.
By taking social, metalinguistic, lexical and conversational motivations into account, we
aimed to see which factors play a role in early bilinguals’ code-switching. Earlier studies
did not consider so many different types of switches as included here for young children.
Apart from classifying specific types of switching we also grouped them into different
broader categories based on the literature, yielding a taxonomy of switches that does not
yet exist for very young children’s code-switching patterns in bilingual group settings.
Our aim was to examine which types of code-switches occurred and categorize these
in terms of children’s motivations for code-switching. We took previously found code-
switching types and their motivations (as presented in Table 1) and analyzed our data on
Languages 2022,7, 274 22 of 28
this basis. The code-switching types we found included the code-switching types found in
the Data Summary, and more specifically in Table 4above.
Socially motivated types of code-switches were most frequent, especially the code-
switching type of accommodation of addressees’ preferences. If a child accommodates his
language choice towards the addressee, they show “awareness of the choice and the level
of control” (Lanvers 2001, p. 452). Through this behavior, children show two important
abilities. First, by tailoring their language choices, they show metalinguistic awareness to
at least some degree, that is, awareness of the language systems they are using. Second, by
adapting their language choice to the addressee, they show that they are able to take the
perspective of the addressee.
The metalinguistic code-switching type metalinguistic insight as well as the social
motivation accommodation of the addressee have one thing in common: both demonstrate
that the child has reached a certain level of curiosity and knowledge about the relationship
of the two languages (Gort 2012;Lanvers 2001; see also Cheng 2003). Previous studies have
suggested a certain level of sensitivity to the interlocutor either with code-switching fre-
quency (Comeau et al. 2003) or with regard to language choice (Genesee et al. 1996;Lanvers
2001;Paradis and Nicoladis 2007). Despite children’s potential lesser proficiency in one
language and their young age they were highly sensitive to their immediate social context
around them and adapted their language choices to another participant in conversation
either through command (teacher insistence) or without command (accommodation of
language preferences).
This raises the question to what extent multilingual children’s utterances are being
determined by agency (willful behavior) as opposed to conventionalized use of switching
patterns. Agentivity implies that the speaker is able to choose between options, whereas
conventionalization implies that certain situations or concepts require a certain language
choice (see Section 3.2 in Bhatt and Bolonyai 2011 for an overview). With regard to our
findings, different code-switching types seem related to different degrees of agentivity:
whereas the code-switching type of accommodation of addressees’ preferences is clearly
agentive, other code-switches such as the type lack of translation suggests to be driven
by habit, and are therefore non-agentive. Notwithstanding these differences in degree
of agentivity across types, the main finding of our paper is that code-switches of very
young children in dynamic, multilingual settings are agentive, supporting earlier work on
parent-child interactions showing that children’s code-switching reflects controlled, willful
behavior (Comeau et al. 2003;Lanvers 2001;Lanza 1997).
Previous research has shown that the development of metalinguistic awareness starts
with the acquisition of the two languages and continues past childhood (Bialystok et al.
2014;Edwards and Kirkpatrick 1999). In our data young multilingual children used the
metalinguistic insight to expand their vocabulary by commenting on translational equiva-
lents. The current results suggest that bilingual children as young as two years of age can
monitor the language choice(s) in conversation and comment on vocabulary across their
languages, which suggests a certain level of meta-linguistic awareness.
Several limitations of this study should be considered. First of all a large number of
unidentified code-switches were found. One might wonder what the added value of our
approach is if many code-switches cannot be categorized. A certain degree of uncodable
utterances is normal given the young age of the children, and the complexities in young
children’s speech. Furthermore, many switches may be motivated by proficiency or lexical
preferences of the children-factors we did not have information about. Yet, earlier work on
code-switching in young children also had considerable numbers of switches that could not
be categorized (Davidiak 2010;Redinger 2010;Reyes 2004). In addition, Gardner-Chloros
(2009) indicates that some code-switches may not necessarily have a motivation and thus
may appear rather random.
Secondly, previous research on various bilingual language skills has shown that
differences in bilingual proficiency are associated with the frequency and use of code-
switching (see Reyes 2004). In our study, such differences were not taken into account.
Languages 2022,7, 274 23 of 28
Future work should further investigate types of code-switching and motivations in natural
settings in bilingual children, considering how proficient children are in their two languages
and how much exposure they receive in each.
Thirdly, our participant group was very heterogeneous with respect to the individual
language backgrounds. All children spoke Dutch and English at daycare, but home
language varied, with some but not all children speaking either Dutch or English or
both Dutch and English at home. Taking into account children’s individual language
background, as well as possible differences in language prestige, would have provided a
more complete picture of young children’s code-switching.
Finally, our data were taken from observations of a relatively large group of children,
yielding relatively little data per child. While this certainly has advantages in terms of
generalizability, the interpretation of our data was sometimes difficult. Future work could
consider collecting more dense data or investigate children’s code-switching over time.
Nevertheless, we found evidence for the role of social, lexical, meta-linguistic and
conservational motivations for code-switching, nuancing the picture that children code-
switch out of lack of proficiency only. While detecting these categories required a qualitative
analysis, we think our qualitative analysis could be the prelude to a larger quantitative
analysis of different types of code switching in young children.
Our findings are qualitative in nature. The question now is in what way these qualita-
tive data may be relevant to computational linguistics and in what ways a further analysis
could benefit from a computational analysis.
Rijhwani et al. (2017) have shown that automatic computational language detection is
possible in code switching analysis. Detecting the languages involved is also the first step in
our analysis. Apart from language detection we coded for motivation at three levels: social,
lexical and conversational motivations. Could we (partially) automatize our analysis?
Social motivations could be detected by coding for speaker profiles and combining
time measures of a switch to switches in the speaker profiles: if we observe that a code
switch is correlated with the presence of a speaker who only has limited knowledge of the
target language, this may indicate the switch is social. Teacher insistence might be detected
by default formulations such as “can you say this in language X”. The naming of languages
might hint at metalinguistic comments. Lexical motivations could be detected by using
translational equivalence lists. Words that appear in only one language in an individual,
might only be known in that language by that individual and hence motivate a switch.
Words that do not have a common translational equivalent such as ‘pepernoten’ (Dutch
sweets) and ‘bakfiets’ (cargo bike intended as a means to transport small children, very
common in Dutch households) most likely occur only in that language in all participants
and hence motivate a switch. Under the assumption that certain topics have recognizable
frames, semantic frames similar to metaphor frames discussed in David and Matlock (2018)
could aid in detecting conversational motivations in switches computationally.
Being able to automatize our data would mean we could analyze a larger dataset
and make more grounded generalizations. Computational linguists would benefit from a
qualitative layer, by making quantitative data more meaningful. If we could automatically
detect motivation for switches this might be put to use in educational contexts. For
example, Cornips (2020) shows that if one language is used in affective contexts only and
not for more educational purposes, this lowers the motivation for children to use this
language. Computational analysis could provide feedback for the teachers in daycares
about the spread and use of the languages spoken. Computational analysis could also
create individual language profiles. Specifically, it could help to identify which children
switch, as well as whether they switch for social reasons or whether there are certain
domains that they discuss in one language only. This information could inform teachers on
the language domains where a child might need support in a particular language.
Languages 2022,7, 274 24 of 28
5. Conclusions
Our study showed that two- to three-year-old multilingual children at Dutch-English
bilingual daycare code-switch between Dutch and English. While there are differences
in frequency of switching between children, the majority produced one or more switches.
A qualitative analysis of these switches showed that seven types of switches could be
identified, which could be categorized as being socially, meta-linguistically, lexically or
conversationally motivated. Taken together, these results show that young children already
have a certain level of perspective taking as they can accommodate the addressee’s language
preferences as well as meta-linguistic awareness, allowing them to draw from their other
language for communicative purposes.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, N.-S.S. and J.V.; methodology, N.-S.S., J.V., and S.P.A.;
software, not applicable; validation, not applicable; formal analysis, N.-S.S.; resources, J.V. and
S.P.A.; writing—original draft preparation, N.-S.S.; writing—review and editing, J.V. and S.P.A.;
visualization, N.-S.S.; supervision, J.V. and S.P.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, grant
number 201700273.510.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of
Amsterdam (protocol code 2017-61 and 18 December 2017).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: All of the identified code-switches can be found in Appendix B.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Distribution of code-switching types across the English observations.
Daycare Motivation Code-Switching Types
A
Social
Accommodation of addressees’ language
preferences (n= 28)
Teacher insistence (n= 1)
Metalinguistic Metalinguistic insight (n= 0)
Lexical Lack of translation (n= 6)
Emphasis (n= 1)
Conversational Shift in topic (n= 0)
Discourse marker (n= 4)
Unidentified code-switches (n= 16)
Sum: code-switches (n= 56)
B
Social
Accommodation of addressees’ language
preferences (n= 3)
Teacher insistence (n= 6)
Metalinguistic Metalinguistic insight (n= 9)
Lexical Lack of translation (n= 0)
Emphasis (n= 1)
Conversational Shift in topic (n=1)
Discourse marker (n= 2)
Unidentified code-switches (n= 7)
Sum: code-switches (n= 29)
Languages 2022,7, 274 25 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Daycare Motivation Code-Switching Types
C
Social
Accommodation of addressees’ language
preferences (n= 8)
Teacher insistence (n= 0)
Metalinguistic Metalinguistic insight (n= 4)
Lexical Lack of translation (n= 1)
Emphasis (n= 0)
Conversational Shift in topic (n= 0)
Discourse marker (n= 2)
Unidentified code-switches (n= 5)
Sum: code-switches (n= 20)
Table A2. Distribution of code-switching types across the Dutch observations.
Daycare Motivation Code-Switching Types
D
Social
Accommodation of addressees’ language preferences
(n= 8)
Teacher insistence (n= 0)
Metalinguistic Metalinguistic insight (n= 0)
Lexical Lack of translation (n= 0)
Emphasis (n= 2)
Conversational Shift in topic (n= 0)
Discourse marker (n= 1)
Unidentified code-switches (n= 14)
Sum: code-switches (n= 25)
E
Social
Accommodation of addressees’ language preferences
(n= 4)
Teacher insistence (n= 0)
Metalinguistic Metalinguistic insight (n= 1)
Lexical Lack of translation (n= 0)
Emphasis (n= 0)
Conversational Shift in topic (n= 6)
Discourse marker (n= 0)
Unidentified code-switches (n= 12)
Sum: code-switches (n= 23)
F
Social
Accommodation of addressees’ language preferences
(n= 1)
Teacher insistence (n= 0)
Metalinguistic Metalinguistic insight (n= 0)
Lexical Lack of translation (n= 0)
Emphasis (n= 4)
Conversational Shift in topic (n= 5)
Discourse marker (n= 0)
Unidentified code-switches (n= 1)
Sum: code-switches (n= 11)
Appendix B
All identified code-switches by the children can be found under: https://osf.io/
fqnpd/?view_only=fca3a22d728545258fae349c825e8fc6 (accessed on 22 May 2022).
Languages 2022,7, 274 26 of 28
References
Auer, Peter. 2005. A postscript: Code-switching and social identity. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 403–10. [CrossRef]
Azlan, Nik Mastura Nik Ismail, and Suthagar Narasuman. 2013. The Role of Code-Switching as a Communicative Tool in an ESL
Teacher Education Classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 90: 458–67. [CrossRef]
Bernardini, Petra, and Suzanne Schlyter. 2004.<