Upload
robbie-illos
View
33
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Seeking to discover the relationship between grammatical proficiency and Intrasentential Code-Switching (CS), the study tested 60 participants by obtaining grammatical proficiency scores and equating them with the frequency count of the two Intrasentential CS modes. A direct relationship significant at p‟proficiency is one level higher than Late Bilinguals as a result of their educational background. The effect of the CS modes on grammar is also more observable in Early Bilinguals than in Late Bilinguals. Lastly, the two bilingual groups did not have any difference in their production of deficiency-driven CS. Considering the findings, the study positions itself in favor of CS as a pedagogical tool, particularly in predicting grammatical proficiency.
Citation preview
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 1
E art
Selected Bilinguals Second Language Grammatical Proficiency
and Intrasentential Code-Switching
A Thesis Presented to the Education Department
of Assumption College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in English
Stephanie B. Robillos
September 2013
Running head: GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 2
Abstract
Seeking to discover the relationship between grammatical proficiency and Intrasentential
Code-Switching (CS), the study tested 60 participants by obtaining grammatical
proficiency scores and equating them with the frequency count of the two Intrasentential
CS modes. A direct relationship significant at p
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 3
Acknowledgements
The researcher would first and foremost like to thank her spiritual thesis partner
from whom all of the guidance and divine favors came. Without the wisdom and strength
from God, none of the words in this page would make sense and it is to Him that all the
credit is given.
It is with deepest gratitude that the researcher also thanks the Division
Superintendent of Quezon City, the Principal and the staff of Pugad Lawin High School,
and the Principal and staff of the Basic Education Department of Trinity University of
Asia for allowing the study to be conducted in their schools. It is also with great pleasure
that the researcher acknowledges the contribution of Lourdes School of Quezon City,
which allowed the tests to be administered to their students.
With the sincerest appreciation and admiration, the researcher thanks Dr.
Bernardita Dela Rama (Education Department Chairperson), Dr. Carmen Lourdes B.
Valdes (Associate Dean) and Sr. Anna Carmela S. Pesongco (President & College Dean),
who have made Assumption College an institute of quality learning as well as a
wonderful home for all its students.
To the researchers Thesis Professor, Prof. Jane P. Macapagal, and to her Panel
members, Prof. Clarisse Bartolome and Prof. Eloisa De Lemos, sincere thanks is given
for sharing their expertise on the field of education and language, which has helped
enrich the analysis made on the results. The most grateful of thanks is also extended to
the researchers adviser, Prof. Valerie Anne Cruz-Miranda, for her conscientious effort in
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 4
examining the various research drafts, and for her support, guidance and motherly
concern.
The researcher would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the validators
Prof. Robert Ortaez, Prof. Oliver Ofracio and Prof. Ma. Cristina Singian as well as the
professors of the Education and English Departments who taught the essential concepts
leading to this topic. Special thanks is also mentioned for Prof. Evangeline Davila who
taught the researcher statistics during her first year and first introduced the ropes of
research. Moreover, the researcher would also like to acknowledge the contribution of
Ms. Shalom Evangeliz Javalera in counter-checking the analyses made by the researcher.
To Ms. Gretchen Galve and Ms. Leah E. Eeres for facilitating the logistics
needed for the thesis proposal and final defense, and to Ms. Manilyn L. Miranda who
endorsed the researcher to other libraries for the enrichment of the paper, appreciation is
much given.
Last but not the least; the researcher would like to thank her parents, Mr.
Theodore Robillos and Mrs. Juliet Robillos, for providing support, care and guidance
throughout this journey. This gratitude is also extended to her brother, Miguel Robillos,
for exhibiting patience and kindness for the good of this endeavor.
This research paper would not be possible without the assistance provided by the
mentioned groups of people and for which the researcher is truly indebted.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 5
Table of Contents
Chapter I The Problem and Review of Related Literature
Background of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Review of Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bilingualism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Grammatical proficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 19
Code-switching . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 25
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . 38
Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 42
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Scope and Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 44
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 45
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .47
Chapter II Method
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Participants and Sampling Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 56
Data Gathering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .61
Method of Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .62
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 6
Chapter III Results and Discussion
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Discussion . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Chapter IV Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Appendix A Letter to Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Appendix B Letter to Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Appendix C Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Appendix D Guidelines for Intrasentential Code-switching Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Appendix E Sample Essay Analysis Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Appendix F Normality Test for Grammatical Proficiency Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . .131
Appendix G Encoded Data in Excel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Appendix H SPSS Generated Output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 7
List of Tables
Table no. Table title Page no.
1 Test Items for Each Grammar Point . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2 Grammatical Proficiency Scores of Early and Late Bilinguals. . . . . . . . . .64
3 Base Language of Early and Late Bilinguals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
4 Proficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals
within clusters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
5 Proficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals
between clusters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6 Deficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals
between clusters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
7 Significant Relationship between Grammatical Proficiency
and Intrasentential CS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8 Significant difference of CS between High and Low
Grammatical Proficiency Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9 Significant difference of CS between Early and Late Bilinguals . . . . . . . 71
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 8
List of Figures
Figure no. Figure title Page no.
1 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 9
Chapter I
The Problem and Review of Related Literature
Background of the Study
Philippine history enumerates several colonizations that brought about variations
in the nations lingua franca. Consequently, bilingualism was embraced as part of the
Filipino identity as evidenced by the widespread use of both English and Tagalog
(officially called Filipino). Because of this, Filipinos are equipped with the ability to
code-switch or juggle two languages within one discourse, thus forming the colloquial
language Taglish.
For several years, linguists believed that Code-Switching (CS) is a strategy which
bilinguals use to compensate for their inability to process either language correctly and
was therefore labelled as deficiency driven. But in the light of modern linguistic
researches, proficiency-driven code-switching, which stems from ones mastery of both
grammar structures, is now recognized as a strategy to achieve communicative clarity and
efficiency (Bautista, 2004).
In the educational setting, it is clear that students resort to CS in order to express
themselves better. Unfortunately, the English-Only Policy in schools prohibits such
strategy that enables them to compensate for their lack of vocabulary. However,
grammatical proficiency and vocabulary are two opposite poles of any language system,
and the lack of memorized foreign words does not mean that one has not mastered
grammatical concepts. On the other hand, grammar had been theorized to be the main
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 10
factor that affects ones ability to code-switch. It is with this premise that linguists all
over the world sought to understand this phenomenon and the system behind it.
Probably one of the most famous types of CS among past researchers (especially
in the field of education) is Intrasentential Code-Switching (also called code-mixing) that
explains the conscious and intentional shifts done by the speaker or writer within the
boundary of a sentence (Bista, 2010). Among all the other types, Intrasentential CS is
generally viewed as the one that requires grammatical proficiency. According to Poplack
(2004), Speakers who engage in the most complex type of Intrasentential codeswitching
generally turn out to be the most proficient in both of the contact languages (p. 14).
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that a lack of solid support for proficiency-driven CS
blocked its acceptance in schools and other formal institutions.
Following the researches that have explored CS and its links to grammar, formal
modes for Intrasentential CS were constructed by Poplack and Sankoff in 1988 and were
later adapted by Bautista (1998) into the Taglish patterns. Recent studies in the
Philippines now utilize Bautistas Taglish patterns as a basis for their research. Among
these, however, very few have explored the links between grammatical proficiency and
the use of Intrasentential CS. This need for a correlational study prompted the researcher
to further investigate the link between the two variables. Proving that grammatical
proficiency can affect CS would not only serve as a support for the theories long-debated
upon, it would also create new avenues for language assessment. This research intended
to achieve the mentioned aims by comparing the English grammatical proficiency scores
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 11
with the Intrasentential CS patterns utilized by selected private and public high school
students, who fit the qualities of Early and Late Bilinguals, respectively.
Review of Related Literature
Bilingualism.
Philippines is known to be a multilingual country, having over 175 different
dialects (Tempo, 2009) in addition to English as the mode of instruction in schools and to
Tagalog being the national language (now changed into the more inclusive term Filipino)
(Durano, 2009; Dumanig, David, & Symaco, 2012). Among these languages, Tagalog
and English dominate everyday use with the majority of the adult population
understanding Tagalog and 56 % of these adults being able to effectively utilize English
(Gonzales as cited by Melchers & Shaw, 2011). As a result of the rich linguistic identities
found in the Philippines, it follows that part of their daily life involves language mixing
resulting to colloquial language forms. Among all these colloquial languages, Taglish
(Tagalog-English) is perceived to be the most widely-used, eventually attracting majority
of the researchers to this specific language mix. In this study, the term Tagalog was
operationally defined as a language with a formal grammatical system, not a dialect
which may vary from one region to another. In this case, though both Tagalog and
Filipino can be used interchangeably, this research utilized the term Tagalog since it is
more specific, more convenient and mostly the term used in local CS studies.
Bilingualism is most often attributed to the wide use of two languages within a
community. For most parts of the Tagalog region (senate and offices included), the use of
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 12
Taglish has been deemed acceptable. Because of this, it is perceived as a natural
occurrence in the society (Smedley as cited by Durano, 2009). Aside from this, the
medium of instruction used in Philippine Schools since 1901 had been English (Moises,
2010) until the implementation of the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education
(MTB-MLE) in school year 2012-2013 (Deped, 2012). Because of this, the English
language in the academic setting is not uncommon, which undeniably supplies them with
extensive exposure to it. In Pascasios (2003/2004) research, it was observed that the
participants who did the most CS were professionals, students and employers, although
some employees made use of CS only when their superior initiated or, at other times,
when the conversation is purely in English.
In a bilingual community, such as the case of Filipino and English learners, the
level of grammatical proficiency is an important factor that affects how the bilingual
switches between two languages. This is especially essential since both languages are
processed during the use of the second language which, for most Filipinos, is English.
When a bilingual utilizes his or her second language (L2), the first language (L1) will
always interfere, activating the use of both languages in parallel (Van Hell & Dijkstra as
cited by Sunderman & Kroll, 2006).
Because of this parallel activation, most linguists believe that although some
bilinguals may develop equal linguistic skills for both the L1 and the L2, it is more likely
that their ability would favor one language system over another (Jacobson as cited by
Bolander, 2008; Andrews & Rusher, 2010). This unequal proficiency for the two
languages can further be explained by Hull and Vaids (2007) meta-analysis. Their study
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 13
suggests that languages can be either Left-Hemisphere dominant (Analytic) or Right-
Hemisphere dominant (Holistic), as determined by the age when bilingualism or
multilingualism was acquired. Age six was found to be the determinant of the languages
hemisphere placing. While Early Bilingualism (L1 and L2 acquired before age six) would
anchor the language system under RH, Late Bilingualism (L2 acquired after age six)
would be stored in the LH. This LH storage goes the same for monolinguals who have
acquired only one language. In this regard, Late Bilinguals and monolinguals have the
same neural connection, which means they are more analytic when using a language.
Early Bilinguals, on the other hand, see both of their languages in the holistic point of
view because L1 and L2 have been bilaterally placed in their mind.
In a case study by Tomiyama (2008) where two Japanese siblings, ages 7 and 10,
were observed, it was concluded that their test scores were considerably at variance when
it came to the grammatical accuracy test. The two siblings were returnees from America
where they stayed for four years and four months. As a result of their return to Japan, the
younger siblings grammatical accuracy in English regressed while the older one
continued to improve. This shows how age would determine the stability of language
acquisition.
Aside from age, proficiency was also found to determine the dominant
hemisphere used by the bilingual. Results of neurolinguistic studies showed that less
proficient bilinguals demonstrate increased use of the left hemisphere for analysis while
more proficient ones approached language more holistically with the use of the right
hemisphere (Hull & Vaid, 2007; Reiter, Pereda & Bhattacharya, 2009). In a study by
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 14
Pulvermller (as cited in Manzini & Savoia, 2011), function words are processed
exclusively in the brains perisylvian cortex and is strongly left-lateralized in typical
right-handers. Given the definition of function words, this means that the processing of
syntax is also done in the left hemisphere. With these studies considered, it is therefore
evident that testing for proficiency must involve the kind of analysis levels only found in
Late Bilinguals rather than Early Bilinguals. Since the distinction between L1 and L2 is
more prominent in Late Bilinguals, it was assumed, for the purposes of this study, that L2
could be tested without much interference from L1.
In Van Hell and Tokowiczs (2010) neuro-analysis, it was found that syntatic
processing played a part in determining the brains hemispheres being used. They found
that the late bilinguals neurological activity presents a clear picture of the difference
between the L1 and L2 syntactic structure. Aside from this, variations in the participants
brain activities also indicated that syntactic structure and grammatical proficiency have a
strong link.
Aside from the neurological connections determined by the two language
structures, another relevant factor create the proficiency gap between Early and Late
Bilinguals socio-economic status. In a study by Keiffer (2008), it was discovered that
Early Bilinguals from language minorities can catch up with native speakers provided
that they share the same demographic factors. Students from both high and low-poverty
schools were observed and tested. It was discovered that those from high-poverty school
took more time to catch up, with their growth-rate trajectory elevating more slowly. In
another research by Pascasio (2003/2004), language proficiency of Filipinos was found to
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 15
be affected by their socio-economic status. This was in terms of their (1) social class and
(2) household amenities, meaning access to resources is indeed a factor in learning a
second language. In relation to resources, media exposure is also a factor in English
proficiency growth, especially in the Philippines where both languages are utilized. In the
previously mentioned study, it was also found that print media affected the proficiency
more than broadcast media. This is explainable due to the fact that Melchers and Shaw
(2011) found that English only comprised broadcast media by 40% whereas Filipino was
the dominant language with 60%. This excludes, however, the length of exposure and
preference of viewers. Besas (2009) research answers this question by stating that
majority (75%) of the students enrolled in a Public High School watched shows which
uses Taglish. Filipino-only shows were next with 19% of the students viewing it followed
by English-only shows with 14%. The last are the other languages with 6%. Either way,
socio-economic status as well as the preference for the colloquial language are factors
that affect CS.
Culture would also be a factor in assessing L2 proficiency of the participants. For
Guglielmis (2008) study, lack of group invariance was found within the Asian subgroup
since they came from different backgrounds. The cause of this was reported to be their
cultural differences in construct conceptualization, greater linguistic and cultural
heterogeneity and, for languages without a shared alphabetic structure (e.g. Chinese and
English), cross-language transfer difficulties. Without a consensus of both L1 and L2
culture, the speaker would find it difficult to switch between two languages as well as
exhibit a high level of proficiency.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 16
In order to come to a full understanding of bilingualism, the history of bilingual
education in the Philippines must first be examined. The most significant regulation
regarding this would be the Bilingual Policy of 1974 which began the use of both Filipino
and English as initial mediums of instruction. During its implementation, Filipino was
used for subjects such as music, physical education, health, values education, civics,
social sciences and Filipino. On the other hand, English was used for subjects such as
mathematics, natural sciences, technical education and English subjects (Viado, 2007).
However, this division between the two mediums of instruction also resulted into a
considerable difference between the other subjects they encompassed. While the subjects
taught in Filipino were learned smoothly, those which were taught in English progressed
more slowly. This was evident in the Master Plan for Basic Education constructed by the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) which reported that low
proficiency in the English language hindered the students advancement in the technical
subjects (Yanagihara, 2007). These unexpected effects then prompted a re-examination of
the curriculum.
In 2002, the Basic Education Curriculum was introduced. This adapted the
Bilingual Policy and required both public and private schools to allocate 400 minutes per
week for the Filipino subject and 500 minutes per week for the English subject for the
grade one level (where the students age range from 6 to 7 years old). With this,
bilinguals who experienced the 2002 Basic Education Curriculumregardless of coming
from private or public schools can be assumed to have been exposed to this amount of
time per week. However, it was further noted that though the curriculum was the same,
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 17
the demographics between private and public schools were extremely different. The
major factors that draw the line between the second language acquisition in a private
school and that of a public school are (1) socio-economic factors, (2) teacher-related
factors, (3) inadequate learning materials and (4) the short and congested school
curriculum. In the same report, quality given by public school education was admitted to
be low (UNESCO-IBE, 2006/2007). It detailed that:
The availability of textbooks has been assured thanks to the Education for
All Programme. However, the other basic educational requirements such
as school buildings, teachers and instructional equipment have not been
fully provided. This led to the adoption of measures like increasing class
sizes, holding multiple shifts and assigning teaching overloads. Even with
such measures, school buildings and teachers are still inadequate (p. 26).
To further widen the gap, the private sector is more advantageous than the public
sector when it comes to pre-school education (i.e. education below grade one), especially
because of the two types of Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) program
offered in the Philippines. This is because the UNESCO-IBE (2006) categorizes public
pre-schools under Center-Based ECCD whereby the enrolment in this program is not
compulsory. On the other hand, private pre-schools are classified under School-based
ECCD where these private institutions require the said program in order for a pupil to
advance to elementary. Since the ECCD program incorporates both English and Filipino
during instruction, it can be inferred that students who have a purely private pre-school
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 18
background have had more exposure to the said languages more than those coming from
the public school.
For this current research, the fourth year high school students who have a purely
private school background (preferably with ECCD exposure) were classified as Early
Bilinguals while those who have a purely public education (preferably without ECCD
exposure) were classified as Late Bilinguals.
Grammatical proficiency.
According to Kroeger (2005), grammar is the set of rules for all structural
properties of a language, which intends to describe its sentence patterns. One of the two
dimensions of grammar that has been the focus of many studies is syntax. This covers
grammatical structure of groups, clauses and sentences (Baker, 2011), which include (1)
word order, (2) constituent/phrase structure, (3) sentence types, (4) special constructions,
(5) modifiers and intensifiers, (6) coordination and correlation (7) subordination (8)
embedding (Center for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2002). Aside from
understanding syntax, Wright (2010) states that high level of functional grammar
proficiency also requires having the knowledge of at least the common classes of speech
defined in formal grammar. Grammatical proficiency, as used in this study, therefore
refers to the aptitude of an individual to analyze and utilize such components of language.
In addition to the fundamentals mentioned above, experimental evidence have
shown that individuals do not perceive sentences as a string of words but rather in the
form of constituents, which are natural parts of a sentence that can stand alone (e.g.
puppy, girl not a, found) (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2011). These basic elements of
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 19
syntax give way for a variety of transformations that can be done inside the confines of a
sentence. When these sentence transformations occur, it is a requirement that
grammatical choices are drawn from a pre-defined set of options or rules (Parker &
Riley, 2010; Baker, 2011). From various descriptive studies, it was concluded that these
restrictions come in the form of patterns (more technically known as syntactic templates)
which are distinct for every language (Payvey, 2010).
In these patterns are smaller units that are called syntactic categories (or simply
parts of speech). The placement of these unitswhich are usually words or phrases
determines the sentences overall meaning. Aside from the placement, the lexical density
of each individual category also carries a considerable effect; thus, categories can either
be major or minor. Major categories can function as heads of phrases (i.e. nouns, verbs,
adjectives, adverbs and prepositions). On the other hand, minor categories are
structurally-dependent words with the main function of holding the sentence together (i.e.
Conjunctions, interjections and determiners) (Kroeger, 2005). On the basis of meaning
(not structure), major categories are called content words whereas minor categories are
function words (Chung & Pennebaker, 2007).
In a study by Thompson (2003), the category that prompted the most code-
switching (that is, switching between two languages in one sentence) is the noun
category, which includes noun phrases and complex nominals. Following this are verbs
and adverbs. In a more recent study by Metila (2007), it was found that the frequency
ranking of the major categories are as follows (most to least): nouns, adverbs, verbs,
adjectives and prepositions. As it is obvious, it is the major categories that dominate the
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 20
sentences followed by the prepositions, which fall under the minor category.
Furthermore, it can be inferred that these categories would be the probable determiners of
grammatical proficiency because of their key role in syntactic analysis and formation.
Indeed, the sensitivity to syntax indicates grammatical proficiency. Several
studies have confirmed that proficient learners tend to be more sensitive to syntactic
violations which the less proficient often overlook. In a study by Zyzik (2008), it was
illustrated that lower-proficiency learners rely heavily on semantic strategies whereas the
higher proficiency learners categorize sentences according to structure. Those who
participated in Hertels (2003) study also exhibited different levels of proficiency when it
came to word order translation. Here, the inversion from subject-verb and verb-subject
was observed among learners of different proficiency levels. It was found that those of
lower proficiency stuck with the subject-verb order while the more proficient ones
exhibited the use of both inversions, depending on the meaning that should be conveyed.
Lastly, the experiment by Marinis, Roberts, Fester, and Clahsen (2008) also explains that
non-native comprehenders underuse information gained from the word order of their
second language. Because of these studies, it cannot be questioned that syntax affects
grammar proficiency more than any other aspect.
Based on the observation by McEwan-Fujita (2010), adult second-language
learners find difficulties in transferring especially when juggling two structurally
dissimilar languages. Fortunately, the syntactic categories of both Tagalog and English
are closely alike wherein all the categories found in English are present in Tagalog, with
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 21
some additions (Lacsamana, 2003). This concept is supported by Sebba (2009) stating
that:
Congruence or equivalence of categories of the grammar is implicit in
many accounts of the syntax of CS even where it is not mentioned. The
cross-linguistic equivalence of categories is in keeping with Chomskyan
ideas of language acquisition, which require that all children be capable of
in principle of acquiring the same categories (p. 41).
With almost the same categories, Tagalog and English users find little or no
difficulty in switching between them. Filipino respondents in Borlongans (2009a) study
noted that English is also among the most comprehensible to them, making it one of the
languages that they are comfortable with. This similarity between the two languages is a
result of grammar universality, which is the trait of grammar that transcends cultures
(Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2011).
Another major similarity between Tagalog and English is the position of the verb
and the object. Both Tagalog and English take on the Verb-Object position (VO).
Nonetheless, it is possible for both to switch to the inverse Object-Verb position (OV). In
such cases when either Tagalog or English take on an inverse position during CS, the
result will have four possible patterns (Chan, 2009):
(1) VO order will have verb from VO language
(e.g. She got yung libro niya kahapon.)
(2) OV order will have verb from OV language
(e.g. Only small prizes ang ipamimigay nila.)
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 22
(3) VO order will have verb from OV language
(e.g. Grade one and grade two pupils lang ang bumati sa akin kanina.)
(4) OV order will have verb from VO language
(e.g. Pritong isda at sopas were what they ate for lunch)
The differences found between two languages, however, are results of arbitrary
linguistic conventions shared by a community that causes some grammatical rules to be
re-shaped by the different societies (Kroeger, 2005). For example, Japanese learners are
better than English learners at acquiring certain grammatical items in Chinese, which is
most likely caused by the difference in culture (Yuan, 2010). In contrast, when the
grammatical rules are the same in two languages, the same brain activity is observed, as
in the case of Sabourin and Stowes (2008) study. But since the vocabulary is completely
different in most languages, this same manner of how the brain processes languages
becomes impossible in lexically-driven constructs. In Sunderman and Kroll (2006), it was
found that both proficient and non-proficient learners had trouble with lexical items. This
goes to show how syntax and vocabulary are poles apart when it comes to language
testing.
In the Philippines, there is a widespread issue in terms of applying the
grammatical concepts during actual communication. For example, many Filipino high
school students have mastered grammar but cannot apply it during speaking. This
happens because first, they fail to utilize the language habitually and second, their
exposure is limited and is mostly academic. Similarly, Early Bilinguals do maintain their
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 23
habitual use of their second language (provided no attrition occurs) whereas Late
Bilinguals are only exposed to the language when in school. Because of this disparity in
language use and exposure, the overall English program offered by the school should be
given much weight, especially for those schools with students who fall under the second
type. Before the curriculum change in school year 2012-2013, however, the English
program observed was highly focused on enhancing grammar and less of actual
communication. The result was, as stated before, the difficulty in applying the concepts in
grammar (Monderin, 2005). This shows that grammatical proficiency does not
automatically equate with language proficiency.
Focusing on specific grammatical proficiency levels, it is a common fact that the
terms for each level varies from one international testing body to another. However, the
descriptions of these proficiency scales are more or less the same when compared. As
stated in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, linguistic
proficiency ranges from four to six levels. In general, these levels are: beginner,
elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, high intermediate and advanced (Retrieved
from http://ngl.cengage.com/pages/cef.html).
Though the understanding of grammar contributes largely to the improvement of
the overall language proficiency, most researchers have focused on the four macro skills
(i.e. listening, speaking, reading, writing) wherein only one-fourth of the test is allocated
for grammar. Nevertheless, significant findings can be obtained from these studies. In
Ultram (2008), the perceived English proficiency of first year college students are on the
beginning level. On the other hand, another study showed that when an actual proficiency
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 24
test is administered, the same level of respondents obtained an intermediate level-score.
Senega, Maranan, Lacson, Escala, and Palcon (2008) explained that the intermediate
level attained under the grammar test is described as having the ability to ask and
answer questions and can speak in discrete sentences and strings of sentences on topics
that are either autobiographical or related primarily to his or her immediate environment
(p. 98).
In Llanes-Leaos (2007) study, the perceived level of language proficiency was
also tested in relation to language use. The results showed that although majority of the
teachers were comfortable with English, the students preferred a mixture of English and
Filipino since it gave them greater ease in learning. In relation to this, it was found that
students hesitate to speak in English because of their difficulty in finding appropriate
words to express ideas. Second only to this reason is the fear of being laughed at or
ridiculed. In the perceived proficiency scoring, majority said they were most proficient in
reading.
Code-switching (CS).
The formation of Taglish sentences relies on a process called Code-switching
(CS), which is an inherent bilingual skill that allows one to combine words or phrases
from two languages in one discourse. Poplack (2004), further describes CS from the
structural perspective as the utterance-internal juxtaposition, in unintegrated form, of
overt linguistic elements from two or more languages, with no necessary change of
interlocutor or topic (p. 1).
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 25
In the past, CS had been frowned upon in formal institutions because it was
perceived to be a strategy bilinguals use to make up for their deficiencies in both their
first language ( L1) and second language ( L2). Nevertheless, the results of recent studies
proved that CS can indeed be proficiency-driven. Viswamohan (2004) supports such
point by stating that writers often use CS to add creativity into their work. The switches
aid the writers in exhibiting wit, engaging in irony and euphemism, making puns,
translating proverbs and emphasizing key points. Aside from this, Taglish was also found
to dominate the ads in newspapers to assert, illustrate, identify, explain or give an order
or advice (Dayag, 2002).
The place of CS in schools, unfortunately, is still questionable. Martin (2006)
begins her study by introducing a Philippine universitys implementation of English-Only
Policy that created inconveniences during class interaction. The results of the study
illustrated that the students and staff of this university preferred to disregard the policy
and continue using CS. Majority of CS utterances were made by Science teachers as a
pedagogical tool, which is thought to motivate student response and action, ensue rapport
and solidarity, promote shared meaning, check student understanding, and maintain the
teaching narrative. In Castros (2004) observation, translating also helped students in
facilitating planning and revising processes during writing. It showed that students were
able to attend to higher level writing goals when thinking aloud in Tagalog even when the
output is in English.
Macizo, Bajo, and Paolieri (2012) emphasized the importance of CS in conceptual
representation. Results of their study show that supressing CS, which support inhibition
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 26
tasks, create a discontinuity in representing concepts. Because of this obstruction, the
bilingual takes a longer time to process either language. Aside from this, the previously
mentioned study reveals that bilinguals are slower to switch from their L2 to their L1
than from L1 to L2. This describes how the more dominant language, almost always the
L1, determines the concepts formed in the weaker language (L2).
For bilinguals, CS cannot happen without enough attention unlike in
monolinguals with whom syntactic arrangement comes automatically (Kovelman, et al.
as cited by Fava & Hull, 2010). This attention must be explicit especially since the two
languages are processed in parallel during discourse or else the meaning cannot be
delivered correctly (Shook & Marian, 2010). CS formed as a result of inattention would
most likely be distorted, forming an awkward string of words not adhering to the pre-
defined CS rules. According to Sebba (2009), this required attention manifests itself in
pauses and interruptions which allow code-switchers to ...avoid the complexities of
harmonizing divergent grammatical systems (p.50). Lack of fluency, therefore, does not
concern the quality of CS because it is a natural part of it.
Because CS occurrences have been first observed in spoken discourse, linguists
have investigated the effect of phonology to CS. It was established by Bullock (2009)
that phonological categories do not overlap in code-switching. Nonetheless, the
dissimilarity in phonological features of two languages may affect perception and word
recognition. Before this, however, Bialystok, McBride-Chang, and Luk (2005) have
already found that phonological awareness of Chinese-English children simply
transferred across languages whereas the ability to decode words was developed
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 27
separately. The results of this study points out that phonological awareness does not
necessarily affect CS as much as the other factors do.
Aside from the neurolinguistic nature of CS, studies have also discovered that
social interaction has considerable effects on participants CS. Goldbarg (2009)
mentioned that the level of intimacy would affect the level of speech formality. Thus,
the more familiar the participant feels to whom s/he is speaking or writing to, the more
informal the language would be (thus more occurances of CS would be achieved). This is
constant with Pascasios (2003/2004) research wherein domain and role relationship are
variables that significantly affect language use. This means that the choice of language
depends on the person with whom the speaker is conversing (e.g. parent, teacher, police
officer) as well as the context in which the discourse is done (formal or informal).
Another finding showed that politeness is a factor that prompts code-switching among
Taglish users. Since Tagalog is more sensitive when relaying domain and role
relationships, it was found that females code-switched more than the males to express
their politeness (Yague, 2007). Meanwhile, Cardenas-Claros and Isharyantis study
(2009) established that researcher-triggered CS where certain CS patterns would be
initiated by the researcher, results to a reciprocal response from the participants by 78%.
In more recent local studies, Taglish was concluded to adhere to no formal
grammatical system nor is it related to proficiency; rather, it takes on a social role as a
discursive strategy (Dench, 2004; Bugayong, 2011). However, Bautista (2004)
emphasizes that using CS as a discursive strategy is only highly evident in proficiency-
driven CS. Meaning, one has to have a fair grasp of both languages in order to use CS for
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 28
communicative efficiency. Deficiency-driven CS is the opposite of the first type
mentioned because it is prompted by lack of ability to communicate using a single
language system. Based on how Bautista coined these types of CS, both are indeed
related to and affected by proficiency.
Several approaches have sought to define the exact nature of CS and the rules that
govern it. Among these approaches of CS is the grammatical approach, which is
regulated by a system coined as code-switching constraints (Reihl, 2005). This explains
the points in a sentence where CS can occur and are categorized into four constraints:
Tag-like CS, Extrasentential CS, Intrasentential CS, Free Morpheme Constraint
(Kailasam, 2010). The first three constraints were found to exist in the Philippine setting,
as concluded by Regala-Flores (2011).
Each of these CS constraints requires certain grammatical proficiency in both L1
and L2 in order to be correctly followed. Intersentential CS (the switch that occurs at
clauses or sentences) is widely acknowledged as the most common CS for low-
proficiency bilinguals while those who switch more Intrasententially (CS within the
clause boundary that occurs through the shift of phrases or individual words) are most
likely to possess higher proficiency (Berk-Seligson, Poplack, & Treffers-Daller as cited
byPoplack, 2004).
Dayag (2002) also found that Intrasentential CS was the most prominent mode
used in Philippine newspaper ads, which falls under written discourse. Conversely,
intersentential CS was the preference of both teachers and students during spoken
discourse in a Philippine university previously mentioned (Martin, 2006). The preferred
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 29
CS constraint was also the same for the private school students in Metilas (2007)
research where 44.3% of utterances was composed of intersentential CS, 35.4% for
Intrasentential CS and 20.2% for tag-switches (another term for extrasentential CS).
Here, it is evident that both proficiency level and discourse form (either spoken or
written) have an effect on the mode of CS being used.
Regarding the age of L2 acquisition, Zirker (2007) found no statistical difference
between the CS types used by the 26 participants. It was noted that both Early and Late
Bilinguals had mixed preferences when using inter-sentential and Intrasentential CS.
Nonetheless, it was observed that it took Late Bilinguals a relatively longer time span to
processes CS than the Early Bilinguals.
For this study, only Intrasentential Taglish patterns were the ones equated with
the grammatical proficiency scores. Syntax, after all, comprises the largest part of
grammar and it is Intrasentential CS that brings out the highest involvement of syntactic
analysis. Boztepe (2005) adds, ...only Intrasentential code-switching is relevant to the
question of syntactic constraints (p.5).
Poplack (2004) summarized the four empirically-established strategies for
Intrasentential CS which are: Smooth CS, Flagged CS, Constituent Insertion and Nonce
Borrowing. The frequency of these Intrasentential types were investigated by Borlongan
(2009) in the Philippine setting wherein Smooth CS accounted for 78.08% of the total CS
utterances. This was followed by Constituent Insertion at 14.7%, Nonce Borrowing at
5.41% and Non-smooth (or Flagged) CS at 1.8% . However, the data gathered in this
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 30
study was not equated to the participants grammatical proficiency levels but to their
tendency to deviate from the implemented English-Only Policy.
An utterance is considered Smooth CS if found to adhere to the Theory of
Equivalence or Equivalence Constraint that says that L1 and L2 must switch at the same
part of the sentence (or switch site) which preserves the grammatical construction of the
constituents adjacent to it (Poplack as cited by Treffers-Daller, 2005).
In contrast, Flagged switches can be of two types: Functional Flagging (whereby
Flagging is done to create an artistic effect or emphasis) or Deficiency-driven Flagging (a
result of production difficulties caused by deficiency) (Poplack, 2004). Watson (2005)
presented in detail the Continuum of Interactional Co-operation where Flagging is used
as either a reduction or an achievement strategy. Among these are: appeals for assistance,
direct self-initiated other repairs, in direct self-initiated other repairs, self-initiated self-
repairs and reinforcement by repetition. It was further noted that these strategies can have
shared domains so their placement across the continuum does not necessarily imply that
they can or cannot be functional. For this present research, compensation strategies were
categorized under Deficiency-driven Flagging along with errors while intentional
Flagging (used for effect) were classified as Functional Flagging.
Constituent Insertions also fall under the limits of equivalence such that syntax is
made up of constituents. Poplack (as cited by Treffers-Daller, 2005), explained that in
this mode of Intrasentential CS, constituents from one language are properly inserted in
the syntactic structure of the other. Because of this, the equivalence constraint is
maintained. After different studies on a number of language pairs, it was also found that
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 31
Constituent Insertions are dependent on the particular society rather than on language
typology. Borlongans (2009b) research in Taglish CS concluded that Constituent
Insertions appear as tag expressions, enclitics, and the Tagalog adverbial parang
(meaning like) and the occurrence of such are very few compared to the percentage of
Smooth CS.
Nonce Borrowing (also called loan-other words) are singly occurring words from
the Donor Language which are surrounded by words or phrases from the Recipient
Language. Nonce Borrowings are not recurrent nor are they widespread in a community
and it is for this reason that Nonce Borrowing is not considered as part of the recipient
language system even though it is familiar to that particular person (Stammers &
Deuchar, 2012). Though this type of Intrasentential CS is almost undistinguishable, the
recent findings by Stammers and Deuchar indicate that Nonce Borrowings integration
depends on the frequency of its occurrence in the community. In the absence of such
data, Poplack, Wheeler, and Westwood (as cited by Boztepe, 2005) propose that words
be analyzed according to their morphological/ syntactic integration, phonological
integration or the entire lexicon (content words) of the individual.
With Tagalog as the recipient language, the Nonce Borrowings can occur in the
form of technical and academic terminologies (Regala-Flores, 2011) whereas with
English as the recipient language, these can occur through local lexicalisations (e.g.
barkada), foreignisms (e.g. lechon), which are culturally-bound. Sometimes, these also
occur as tautonym (e.g. standby meaning idler or bystander) or heteronyms (e.g. carabao,
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 32
calamansi and yaya) (Melchers & Shaw, 2011). In these cases, culture becomes an
essential factor in assessing the two language structures.
Also relying on the frequency of use is Lexical Borrowing. This type of
borrowing is characterized by the presence of loan words, which are foreign words that
have become fully-integrated into the community. Although it may look exactly like a
Nonce Borrowing, it functions as part of the L1 linguistic system and is no different from
that recipient language. For example, the phrase thank you is considered a lexical
borrowing since it is widespread in the Philippine setting. Haspelmath (2009) finishes his
chapter on lexical borrowing by stating that it is not in any way dependent on code-
switching (p. 42). In this case, Lexical Borrowing is not a type of Intrasentential CS.
Based on definition, all the mentioned types of Intrasentential CS adhere to both
L1 and L2 grammars except for Flagged CS. However, in the presence of Functional
Flagging, which is done for artistic effect, only Deficiency-driven Flagging can be
classified as the determiner of low proficiency. It is therefore possible that a
grammatically proficient individual will utilize all the Intrasentential CS types excluding
Deficiency-driven Flagging. A study that showed similar results is of Saleh (as cited by
Taweel & Btoosh, 2012) where a high proficiency in the second language resulted into a
variety of Intrasentential CS types and no occurrence of intersentential CS. This report
supports Poplack (2004) who stated that bilinguals restrict their CS in number, type
and/or discourse location according to their proficiency.
Boztepe (2005) noted that in order to fully determine what type of CS is used by
the participant, it is important to distinguish the base language (considered as the
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 33
recipient language), which is the main language in a code-switched utterance to which a
majority of phonological and morphological features of discourse can be attributed
(p.6). Cantone (2005) stated that the base language can be determined by the word order
prominent in the sentence, to which the rest of the code-switched parts adhere. This
implies that both L1 and L2 can serve as the base language, depending on the structure of
the sentence. Findings of Cantones research illustrated that adjectives and prepositions
determined the base language instead of the nouns that followed it. According to Backus
and Dorleijn (2009), the previously mentioned dominance of one language during CS is
called insertional CS. It is possible though that both language structures are equally at
play during a switch and this is termed as alternational CS. In this case, the two language
structures converge in such a way that the dominance of one language is
undistinguishable. Poplack and Sankoff (as cited by Adamou, 2010) state that similar
languages, therefore, would produce alternational CS whereas typologically distinct
languages will mostly utilize insertional CS. According to Bugayong (2011), using
English as a base language was more common in e-mails with 124 occurrences than using
Filipino as a base language, which only had 87 occurences.
The base language has its roots in the Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model
constructed by Myers-Scotton. The MLF model advocates the importance of concepts
formed in the more dominant language (called the Matrix Language) that conversely
affects the less dominant one (Embedded Language) (Namba, n.d.). The Matrix language
is therefore similar with the base language. However, for the purposes of this study, the
latter term was used.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 34
CS can either be in spoken or written from (Bista, 2010). For past CS studies,
most methods of data gathering were done through transcribing oral responses of
participants. This is because, in spoken discourse, participants tend to code-switch more
using different varieties and levels of CS (Callahan as cited by Jalal, 2010). While written
CS is still considered as under-researched, Sebbas (2005) study concluded that the
conversational tone used in spoken CS can be achieved in authentic forms of written CS
such as e-mails, chats, etc. where the space is usually unregulated. This will prompt more
use of CS among the participants than that of regulated formal writing. According to
Cardenas-Claros and Isharyanti (2009), the main difference between written and spoken
CS is that Written language tends towards structural complexity, formality and
abstraction [while] spoken language is more context-dependent and structurally simpler
(pp. 71-72). Markus (2008) adds that, aside from authenticity, spoken forms can be more
precise than writing in practical applications, especially when testing syntagmatic
structures.
As an offshoot of the argument regarding spoken and written CS, the computer-
mediated communication (CMC) was made in order to acquire the advantages of both
forms. Dorleijn and Nortier (2009) describe it as a hybrid between speaking and
writing (p. 128) because it has the convenience and the higher-conscious CS production
of the written form as well as the authenticity of the spoken. There are three types of
CMCs which are e-mail, chat and forum. Among these, forums offer the most advantages
since they are easily obtainable, easy to store, manipulable, diverse in text type, informal/
colloquial, possibly interactional and they offer longhitudinal data. Considering the
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 35
resources, the study utilized written CS with an informal prompt that mimicked the tone
used in e-mails.
In summary, recent state of research has found that code-switching and
grammatical proficiency both concern bilingualism and the use of grammar, specifically
syntax.
Bilingualism is a natural occurrence in communities exposed to two languages
like the Philippines, eventually forming the colloquial CS language Taglish. It was
established, through neurological analyses, that age 6 was the determinant of the type of
bilingual one can be. Those who acquire their L2 before age 6 would be classified as
Early Bilinguals while those who acquire their L2 after age 6 become Late Bilinguals.
This division between the bilingual community is evident in private and public schools
where factors such as socio-economic status, teacher-related factors, inadequate learning
materials and the short and congested school curriculum confirms the language gap
between the two groups.
Grammatical proficiency, though seldom directly tested, is the underlying
component of language processing that determines the learners ability to correctly relay
information. Research indicates that syntactic elements not only vary in lexical density
but also in the frequency of use. Several studies have also shown that there is a close link
between grammatical proficiency and syntactic sensitivity, as proven by neurological
analysis. Based from this, it was found that the two language structures learned by the
bilingual should be considered since they function in parallel. However, since mastery of
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 36
L1 follows with the mastery of L2, grammatical proficiency tests would be better directed
toward the L2.
On the other hand, studies on CS seek to explain the system behind the two
language structures and how they are mixed together. Here, the base languagethe main
language system influencing the CS formationis the basis for analysing any CS
occurrence. That being said, both L1 and L2 can alternately stand as the base language
during CS, especially when both languages are deeply integrated and widely-used in a
community such as that of Philippines. However, for most part of the Philippines, CS has
been dismissed as a result of linguistic deficiency but recent studies have proved
otherwise. Its links to grammar have been established in general such that CS occurrences
can now be classified according to its patterns. Heavily relying on syntactic patterns,
Intrasentential CS is the most unexplored type. Its subtypes include Smooth CS, Flagging
(either functional or deficiency-driven), Constituent Insertion and Nonce Borrowing.
While most researches have established CS and its links to grammar, none have sought to
find specific connections between grammatical proficiency and the types of
Intrasentential CS.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 37
Theoretical Framework
Equivalence Constraint theory.
Several researchers have already attributed the system of CS to the grammatical
structure of both languages. The most prominent among them is the Equivalence
constraint by Poplack (1980). The term equivalence is derived from the premise that
switches occur the particular part of the sentence where a similarity between two
languages can be found, which provides a gateway for the change in the grammatical
structure without affecting the meaning relayed by adjacent constituents.
In the course of Poplacks research, the equivalence constraint was given more
emphasis as she listed that types that adhered to it. Among the Intrasentential CS types,
only Smooth CS, Constituent Insertion and Nonce Borrowing were in accordance with
the mentioned theory whereas Flagged CS deviated from this constraint. Poplack (1993)
stated, Code-switching [Smooth CS], Constituent Insertion and Nonce Borrowing are all
(potentially) ways of alternating two languages smoothly within the sentence and in this,
all contrast with Flagged switching (p.281)
Aside from analyzing the different patterns of code-switching, Poplack compared
the participants linguistic fluency to the major code-switching types found in the study.
The finding for this part of the research implies that fluent bilinguals tend to use
Intrasentential code-switching while non-fluent bilinguals opted to code-switch more
intersententially. Poplack, however, did not administer a test that would specifically
measure grammatical proficiency. Rather, participants were selected based on their age of
arrival in the United States as well as their dominant language of use.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 38
Types of Intrasentential Code-Switching in Taglish.
In their article in Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of
Language and Society, Poplack and Sankoff (as cited by Bautista, 1998) categorized the
types of Intrasentential code-switching into four: Smooth CS, Flagged CS, Nonce
Borrowing and Constituent Insertion.
From the term itself, Smooth CS refers to the kind of switching that adheres to the
grammatical structure of both languages such that its occurence seems natural and
smooth. In contrast, Flagged CS draws attention to the switch sites, often occurring in the
form of repetition, metalinguistic commentary, etc. Since the switch becomes noticeable
and unnatural during Flagging, it is believed to be the result of either deficiency or
proficiency (done to add an artistic effect). These two types of Flagging are termed
Deficiency-driven Flagging and Functional Flagging, respectively. For the purposes of
this study, the mentioned types of Flagging were taken as separate Intrasentential CS
types. The third type of CS is Constituent Insertion whereby a grammatical constituent
(tag expressions, enclictics and adverbials) from one language is inserted into the other
language, yet its position within the sentence depends on the grammar of its origin.
Lastly, Nonce Borrowing involves the insertion of a single foreign word that is not
widespread in the other language.
Bautista (1998) adapted the four Intrasentential types of CS into Taglish. In this
study, the Taglish patterns were grouped according to each type and were given brief
explanations. Though most of the equivalence constraints were applicable to the mixing
of Tagalog and English, Bautista found out that Taglish is capable of creating other
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 39
patterns that contradict with the previous theory. For Smooth CS, the following revisions
were proposed by Bautista:
1. For a Taglish VSO/SVO pair, switches can occur between Subject and Verb
(or vice-versa).
2. Switching can occur between a Tagalog verb and an English subject.
3. The Object cannot be a switch point in Tagalog-English CS because of their
determiners.
4. English words can be syntactically and morphologically integrated into
Tagalog.
Lastly, in relation to the identification of nonce or lexical borrowing, Bautista
(1998) proposed that the word order be examined. She states that the base language will
always be the language from which the word order is based and it is from this that we
determine the Nonce Borrowings or the lexical borrowings.
This research made use of the mentioned theories in order to ascertain the
relationship between grammatical proficiency and code-switching. The concept of CS
being proficiency or deficiency-driven will guide this research into assigning proficiency
levels for each type of Intrasentential CS. Aside from this, the new Taglish patterns
provided by Bautista in her paper Another Look at Tagalog-English Code-Switching
(1998) will serve as a basis in categorizing the participants use of CS.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 40
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1. English Grammatical Proficiency and Intrasentential Code-switching of
Selected Early and Late Bilinguals
This research focused on establishing the link between grammatical proficiency
and code-switching (CS) among Early and Late Bilinguals who purely come from private
and public high schools, respectively. In order to acquire the data, students from both
bilingual groups were given an English grammatical proficiency test, which indicated
SECOND LANGUAGE
GRAMMATICAL
PROFICIENCY
(English)
High Proficiency
Low Proficiency
INTRASENTENTIAL
CODE-SWITCHING MODES
Proficiency-driven
-Smooth CS
-Functional Flagging
-Constituent Insertions
-Nonce Borrowing
Deficiency-driven
-Deficiency-driven Flagging
BASE LANGUAGE
L1 (Tagalog)
L2 (English)
Both (L1 & L2)
Early Bilinguals
(Private High School Students)
Late Bilinguals
(Public High School Students)
Grammatical
Proficiency Test
Essay
Writing Test
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 41
their proficiency levels. The same groups were also given an essay writing test from
which the CS occurrences were obtained. Each occurrence was then grouped according to
the base language used. This step was crucial in determining the mode of CS that each
occurrence fell under. The results of the two tests were then compared to each other by
first clustering the participants from each bilingual group according to their proficiency
level then analyzing the frequency of each of their CS modes. The results from the
grammatical proficiency test and the Intrasentential CS analysis of the essays then
became the basis for correlating second language grammatical proficiency and
Intrasentential CS as well as for comparing the early and late bilingual groups.
Statement of the Problem
The study intended to establish the connection between the grammatical
proficiency and the Intrasentential Code-Switching of selected Early and Late Bilinguals.
Specifically, it answered the following questions:
1. What is the English grammatical proficiency of the respondents?
2. What is the frequency of the Intrasentential code-switching modes used by the
respondents?
a. Proficiency-driven Intrasentential CS
- Smooth CS
- Functional Flagging
- Constituent Insertions
- Nonce Borrowing
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 42
b. Deficiency-driven Intrasentential CS
- Deficiency-driven Flagging
3. Is there a significant relationship between English grammatical proficiency
and Intrasentential code-switching?
4. Is there a significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
participants with high and low grammatical proficiencies?
5. Is there a significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
Early and Late Bilinguals?
Hypothesis
The study set forth the null hypotheses which were tested at 0.05 level of
significance:
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between grammatical proficiency and
Intrasentential code-switching of Early and Late Bilinguals.
Ha1: There is a significant relationship between grammatical proficiency and
Intrasentential code-switching of Early and Late Bilinguals.
Ho2: There is no significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
participants with high and low grammatical proficiencies
Ha2: There is a significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
participants with high and low grammatical proficiencies
Ho3: There is no significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
Early and Late Bilinguals.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 43
Ha3: There is a significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between Early
and Late Bilinguals.
Scope and Limitations
This correlational study aimed to determine the relationship between grammatical
proficiency and Intrasentential code-switching of selected bilinguals who have been
purely exposed to either the private or the public school system since the beginning of
their education. Hence, the variables were bilingualism, grammatical proficiency and
Intrasentential code-switching. While grammar was focused on the respondents second
language (English), the code-switching occurrences were counted according to the
existing Taglish patterns. To test grammatical proficiency, the research made use of the
Maastricht University Language Centre, English Department English Diagnostic Test
(Version 2, Standard). On the other hand, the frequency count of the Intrasentential code-
switches was obtained through an essay writing activity. The participants responses were
prompted by: (1) A technical topic and (2) a personal topic. The administering of two
tests happened on July 29 and August 27. The first date was allotted for the late bilingual
group from Pugad Lawin High School (public) in Quezon City while the second date was
for Trinity University of Asia (private), also in Quezon City. The overall number of
participants was 60 (30 from the public school and 30 from the private school).
Though this research concerns the use of two language structuresTagalog and
Englishonly proficiency in English grammar was tested because it is the second
language of both the Early and Late Bilinguals. Following this, grammatical proficiency
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 44
in Tagalog was also excluded from this study since, being the first language, it is
assumed to have been already mastered by the participants. It is therefore more likely that
code-switches can only be caused by proficiency or deficiency in English. Lastly, the
grammatical accuracy or correctness of the utterances during CS was not covered by this
present study given that its concern lies solely on the switch sites, which are essential in
identifying the Intrasentential CS type being used.
Significance of the Study
This research focused on the relationship between the code-switching phenomena
and grammatical proficiency in order to ascertain its contribution to language evaluation
inside the bilingual classroom.
School administrators.
The acceptance of CS as an evidence of learning will yield to a more inclusive
bilingual education program and will involve the participation of more students. Because
of this, school administrators will be given a more holistic observation of the English
language classroom, unlike in a school with an English-only policy where the bulk of the
language production only comes from a few fluent English speakers. In the same sense,
class observations will also yield to more accurate teacher evaluations.
Teachers of English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL).
By investigating the levels of proficiency exhibited in each type of Intrasentential
CS, instances of code-switching can now be used as a type of formative assessment
instead of being dismissed as an indicator of deficiency. In addition, future language
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 45
programs can be created where students will be taught to master the concepts of grammar
using CS or make an intervention program that would facilitate the separate mastery of
L1 and L2 by pinpointing the recurring CS sites and types of the bilinguals.
Students.
Aside from educators, students who are drawn back by lack of English words can
still be perceived as grammatically competent. If the findings of this research will be
incorporated in the classroom, more students will be able to recite and practice their
mastery in grammar while they are still familiarizing themselves with the English
vocabulary. They will also be able to focus on higher-level learning tasks since the
barrier of L2 deficiency is out of the way.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 46
Definition of Terms
Base language.
Accoding to Boztepe (2005) Base Language is the main language in a code-
switched utterance to which a majority of phonological andmorphological features of
discourse can be attributed (p.6).
Operationally, the same definition is adapted excluding phonology. The base
language for this study can either be Tagalog (the first language) or English (the second
language), depending on the syntax used.
Bilingual.
According to Grosjean (as cited by Scherer, Fonseca & Ansaldo, 2010), a
bilingual refers to one who uses two languages to facilitate communication, regardless of
the context.
The same definition is used to refer to Filipinos who use Tagalog and English
alternatively in their speech.
Code-switching (CS).
Code-switching, as Poplack (2004) defined, is the utterance-internal
juxtaposition, in unintegrated form, of overt linguistic elements from two or more
languages, with no necessary change of interlocutor or topic (p. 1).
Operationally, the term is used to refer to the process of switching from one
language to another in general. The abbreviated form CS is used by most researchers in
the field of linguistics so the same form will be adapted in this study.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 47
Constituent Insertion.
The act of inserting a grammatical constituent from one language into a syntactic
slot made for the other language (Poplack, 2004).
In this study, Constituent Insertions are defined in the same way, specifically in
reference to adverbials, tag-expressions and non-content words.
Constraint.
Constraint is a term that refers to limitation or restriction (Retrived from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constraint?s=t).
In the operational sense, a constraint is a general syntactic rule in code-switching
made up by the similarities between two languages.
Early Bilingual
Early Bilinguals are people who acquired a second language before age 6
(Genesee, et al. as cited by Fava & Hull, 2010).
Operationally, Early Bilinguals are described to have acquired their second
language at the same age range (from 0-6 years old), usually even before they entered
school through extensive use at home or through their exposure to media. The researcher
also ruled out the possibility of attrition in the Early Bilinguals who will participate in the
study.
First Language (L1).
In linguistics, first language is the native language acquired by an individual
(Retrieved from http://thesaurus.com/browse/first+language?s=t).
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 48
For this study, the first language of the participants is Tagalog or more officially
known as Filipino and the abbreviation L1 was used to refer to it.
Flagged code-switching.
The constraint where switches draw attention to the switch sites through
repetition, metalinguistic commentary and other ways that, in contrast with Smooth CS,
make the switch noticeable (Poplack, 2004).
Operationally, Flagged code-switching was used as a general term to cite its two
types: Functional Flagging or Deficiency-driven Flagging. The first type is used as a form
of artistic expression while the latter is a result of grammatical deficiencies.
Grammar.
According to Kroeger (2005), grammar is the set of rules for all structural
properties of a language, which intends to describe its sentence patterns.
The researcher used the term to refer to the language structure that two languages
adhere to. Grammar as used in this study gives more emphasis on the rules rather than the
specific elements that comprise it.
Grammatical proficiency.
Grammatical proficiency is the ability to utilize all structural properties of a
language except sound structure. It intends to describe the word and sentence patterns of
a language by formulating a set of rules (Kroeger, 2005). In addition, grammatical
proficiency is the explicit awareness of how language works. Moreover, the term
proficiency is preferred over competence since the latter is always performed (Shanklin,
1994).
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 49
In the same sense, grammatical proficiency in this study was taken as an
individual variable that is measurable through a test and can be hypothetically performed
using code-switching. Furthermore, it is the ability of a bilingual to utilize structural
properties of a language excluding phonology and morphology.
Intrasentential Code-Switching.
This is the process of switching between two languages in one sentence (Bista,
2010). It takes place within the clause boundary and only occurs through the shift of
phrases or individual words (Hamers & Blanc as cited by Dulm, 2007).
Operationally, Intrasentential code-switching is defined the same way.
Late bilingual.
Late Bilinguals are people who acquired a second language after age 6 (Genesee,
et al. as cited by Fava & Hull, 2010).
Operationally, Late Bilinguals are described to have acquired their second
language at the same age of six, usually from the time they entered school where English
is only explicitly taught in the higher grade levels.
Nonce Borrowing.
Nonce Borrowing is the process that basically uses a word from the L2 which is
already embedded in ones vocabulary because of frequency of use, familiarity and
phonological integration (Poplack as cited by Borlongan, 2009b). These words, also
called loan-other words, are not recurrent nor are they widespread in a community.
Nonce Borrowing as used in this study is simply the usage of jargons, technical
terms, idioms and highly cultural words from either the L1 or the L2.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 50
Patterns.
A combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming aconsistent or character
istic arrangement (Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pattern?s=t).
For this study, patterns are pre-defined code-switching tendencies according to
structure, which are presented in sentence form. In Linguistics, these are also called
syntactic templates.
Private school.
A private school is an educational institution maintained and administered by
private individuals or groups (Philippine National Statistical Coordination Board, n.d.).
Operationally, the private school was used to refer to the Early Bilinguals where
the participants will be coming from.
Public school.
Also called government schools, these are established, operated and supported by
the government (Philippine National Statistical Coordination Board, n.d.).
In this study, the public school was used to refer to the Late Bilinguals where the
participants will be coming from.
Second Language (L2).
Once the mother tongue or first language acquisition is established, a second
language can be acquired by an individual and is therefore the additional language
(Singhal, 2011).
Operationally, the second language of the participants is English and the
abbreviation L2 is used to refer to it.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 51
Smooth code-switching.
The equivalence constraint says that, in code-switching, both languages must
switch at the same part of the sentence (or switch site) which preserves the grammatical
construction of the constituents adjacent to the switch site (Poplack, 1980).
The researcher adapted of the same definition in this study.
Syntactic Categories.
Also called parts of speech, these determine a words interpretation and the
meaning of the phrase or sentence in which it occurs. Words and phrases fall under
syntactic categories (Kroeger, 2005).
The same definition was used for this research. The syntactic categories that will
be used for this study are Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunction
and Determiners/ Articles. However, when referring to syntactic categories, interjections
were not included.
Syntax.
Syntax is the grammatical structure of groups, clauses and sentences (Baker,
2011), which include (1) word order, (2) constituent/phrase structure, (3) sentence types,
(4) special constructions, (5) modifiers and intensifiers, (6) coordination and correlation
(7) subordination (8) embedding (Center for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2002).
In operational terms, syntax refers to the way words are arranged in the sentence.
In general, it is composed of two thingsword order and the individual syntactic
categories.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 52
Taglish.
Taglish is the colloquial term for code-switching between Filipino and English.
Because the Filipino language is composed of hundreds of dialects, Tagalog was
appointed as the official language of the Philippines. To make the term more inclusive,
Tagalog is often referred to as Filipino (Durano, 2009).
Operationally, Taglish refers to the code-switching language used by majority of
Filipinos in the Luzon area.
Utterance.
An utterance is referred to as something spoken, which may be a word or a group
of words (Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utterance?s=t).
Operationally, this is used in couple with code-switching to cite a single sentence
that makes use of two languages. When in plural, it refers to the sentences formed
through the process of code-switching.
GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING 53
Chapter II
Method
This chapter discusses the research design, participants and sampling technique, data
gathering procedure, and method of data analysis that will be used in this study.
Research Design
The three variablesbilingualism, second language (L2) grammatical proficiency
and Intrasentential Code-Switching (CS) were investigated upon through the
quantitative research design. Specifically, the researcher employed the Comparative
Correlational Design, which seeks to determine the relationship between the mentioned
variables (Johnson & Reynolds, 2013). In this design, the L2 grammatical proficiency
and Intrasentential CS were obtained from the two bilingual groups: the early bilingual
group from the private school and the late bilingual group coming from the public school.
Therefore, the correlation occurred at two levels: one between the L2 grammatical
proficiency and Intrasentential CS, and another between the Early and Late Bilinguals.
Participants and Sampling Technique
The participants for the early bilingual group came from Trinity University of
Asia, which is a co-education