Code-switching and Translanguaging: Potential Functions in Multilingual

Classrooms
The rise of multilingualism has drawn the attention of language researchers and instructors to
various phenomena that have been observed in multilingual speakers, who develop knowledge
on how and when to use their languages depending on, for instance, the interlocutors involved in
the conversation, the topic of the conversation, and the social context (Reyes, 2004). The present
paper aims to focus on two representative multilingual phenomena, namely code-switching and
translanguaging. Each phenomenon will be defined based on existing literature and their
potential functions in multilingual classroom research will be highlighted and discussed.
Code-switching is a bilingual-mode activity in which more than one language, typically
speakers native language and second language (L2), are used intrasententially or
intersententially (Cook, 2001). Code-switching has not been welcomed in traditional L2
classrooms where the students target language and native language are clearly divided, and the
target language has to be the official language in the classroom. Such a tendency may have
been due to the general belief that switching to an alternate language is the result of having
incomplete knowledge of the language in which the utterance was initiated (e.g. Reyes, 2004).
Many researchers now admit that code-switching commonly takes place in multilingual
contexts, not simply due to lack of knowledge in a particular language, but for different
communicative functions. For example, multilingual speakers seem to manipulate their linguistic
codes in order to establish multilingual/multicultural identities among themselves (Kramsch &
Whiteside, 2007), carry out cognitively demanding tasks (Reyes, 2004), or convey the meaning
of the intended idea more accurately (Zentella, 1997). Code-switching also has an interpersonal,
social function; multilingual speakers consistently monitor and attempt to accommodate to the
interlocutors language use. As the abovementioned functions imply, recent research in
multilingualism has examined the positive effects of code-switching in language curricula (e.g.
Zentella, 1997). Thus, in current multilingual contexts, code-switching is occasionally employed
by language curriculum developers and instructors to assist language practices that multilingual
speakers are engaged in (Creese & Blackledge, 2010).
The term translanguaging is a relatively recent one used in line with code-switching in
the literature. Translanguaging is similar to code-switching in that it refers to multilingual
speakers shuttling between languages in a natural manner. However, it started as a pedagogical
practice, where the language mode of input and output in Welsh bilingual classrooms was
deliberately switched (Williams, 2002). Through strategic classroom language planning that
combines two or more languages in a systematic way within the same learning activity,
translanguaging seeks to assist multilingual speakers in making meaning, shaping experiences,
and gaining deeper understandings and knowledge of the languages in use and even of the
content that is being taught (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012; Williams,
2002). Garca (2009) extended the scope of translanguaging to refer to processes that involve
50
Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 50-52
The Forum

multiple discursive practices, where students incorporate the language practices of school into
their own linguistic repertoire freely and flexibly. The act of translanguaging is expected to
create a social space for multilingual speakers by bringing together different dimensions of their
personal history, experience and environment, their attitudes, beliefs and performance (Wei,

2011, p. 1223). The languages are, thus, utilized flexibly and strategically so that classroom
participants can experience and benefit from the permeability of learning across languages. This
allows the participants to be free from undergoing language separation or coping with
sociolinguistic matters, such as language power and identity, which frequently affect the
performance of speakers of minoritized languages in typical monolingual classrooms (Garca,
2009).
The abovementioned multilingual practices (i.e. code-switching and translanguaging), are
still understood broadly and practiced limitedly. There is no concrete set of teaching strategies
that are generalizable across all classroom settings (Canagarajah, 2011; Hornberger & Link,
2012). In addition, to what extent these practices facilitate multilingual students' language
learning as well as academic achievement has not yet been determined. Nonetheless, the
implementation of multilingual practices remains an appealing task for language educators and
researchers, and it may allow multilingual individuals to acknowledge and use a fuller range of
linguistic practices and develop rich and varied communicative repertoires (Garca, 2009;
Hornberger & Link, 2012).

Code-switching
This article is about the use of more than one language in speech. For other uses, see Codeswitching (disambiguation).
In linguistics, code-switching occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages,
or language varieties, in the context of a single conversation. Multilinguals, speakers of more
than one language, sometimes use elements of multiple languages when conversing with each
other. Thus, code-switching is the use of more than one linguistic variety in a manner consistent
with the syntax and phonology of each variety.
Code-switching is distinct from other language contact phenomena, such as borrowing, pidgins
and creoles, loan translation (calques), and language transfer (language interference). Borrowing
affects the lexicon, the words that make up a language, while code-switching takes place in
individual utterances.[1][2][3] Speakers form and establish a pidgin language when two or more
speakers who do not speak a common language form an intermediate, third language. On the
other hand, speakers practice code-switching when they are each fluent in both languages. Code
mixing is a thematically related term, but the usage of the terms code-switching and code-mixing
varies. Some scholars use either term to denote the same practice, while others apply codemixing to denote the formal linguistic properties of language-contact phenomena and codeswitching to denote the actual, spoken usages by multilingual persons.[4][5][6]
In the 1940s and the 1950s, many scholars considered code-switching to be a substandard use of
language.[7] Since the 1980s, however, most scholars have come to regard it as a normal, natural
product of bilingual and multilingual language use.[8][9]

The term "code-switching" is also used outside the field of linguistics. Some scholars of
literature use the term to describe literary styles that include elements from more than one
language, as in novels by Chinese-American, Anglo-Indian, or Latino writers.[10] In popular
usage, code-switching is sometimes used to refer to relatively stable informal mixtures of two
languages, such as Spanglish, Taglish, or Hinglish.[11] Both in popular usage and in
sociolinguistic study, the name code-switching is sometimes used to refer to switching among
dialects, styles or registers, as practiced by speakers of African American Vernacular English as
they move from less formal to more formal settings.[12]

Social motivations
Code-switching relates to, and sometimes indexes social-group membership in bilingual and
multilingual communities. Some sociolinguists describe the relationships between codeswitching behaviours and class, ethnicity, and other social positions.[13] In addition, scholars in
interactional linguistics and conversation analysis have studied code-switching as a means of
structuring speech in interaction.[14][15][16] Some discourse analysts, including conversation analyst
Peter Auer, suggest that code-switching does not simply reflect social situations, but that it is a
means to create social situations.[17]

Markedness model
Main article: Markedness model
The Markedness Model, developed by Carol Myers-Scotton, is one of the more complete
theories of code-switching motivations. It posits that language users are rational, and choose to
speak a language that clearly marks their rights and obligations, relative to other speakers, in the
conversation and its setting.[18] When there is no clear, unmarked language choice, speakers
practice code-switching to explore possible language choices. Many sociolinguists, however,
object to the Markedness Models postulation that language-choice is entirely rational.[19][20]

Sequential analysis
Scholars of conversation analysis such as Peter Auer and Li Wei argue that the social motivation
behind code-switching lies in the way code-switching is structured and managed in
conversational interaction; in other words, the question of why code-switching occurs cannot be
answered without first addressing the question of how it occurs. Using conversation analysis
(CA), these scholars focus their attention on the sequential implications of code-switching. That
is, whatever language a speaker chooses to use for a conversational turn, or part of a turn,
impacts the subsequent choices of language by the speaker as well as the hearer. Rather than
focusing on the social values inherent in the languages the speaker chooses ("brought-along
meaning"), the analysis concentrates on the meaning that the act of code-switching itself creates
("brought-about meaning").[14][19]

Types of switching
Scholars use different names for various types of code-switching.

Intersentential switching occurs outside the sentence or the clause level (i.e. at sentence
or clause boundaries).[24] It is sometimes called "extrasentential" switching.[25] In
Assyrian-English switching one could say, "Ani wideili. What happened?" ("Those, I did
them. What happened?").[26]

Intra-sentential switching occurs within a sentence or a clause.[24][25] In Spanish-English

switching one could say, "La onda is to fight y jambar." ("The in-thing is to fight and
steal.")[27]

Tag-switching is the switching of either a tag phrase or a word, or both, from one
language to another, (common in intra-sentential switches).[24] In Spanish-English
switching one could say, "l es de Mxico y as los criaron a ellos, you know." ("He's
from Mexico, and they raise them like that, you know.")[28]

Intra-word switching occurs within a word itself, such as at a morpheme boundary.[25] In

Shona-English switching one could say, "But ma-day-s a-no a-ya ha-ndi-si ku-mu-on-a.
("But these days I don't see him much.") Here the English plural morpheme -s appears
alongside the Shona prefix ma-, which also marks plurality.[28]

Most code-switching studies primarily focus on intra-sentential switching, as it creates many

hybrid grammar structures that require explanation. The other types involve utterances that
simply follow the grammar of one language or the other. Intra-sentential switching can be
alternational or insertional. In alternational code-switching, a new grammar emerges that is a
combination of the grammars of the two languages involved. Insertional code-switching involves
"the insertion of elements from one language into the morphosyntactic frame of the other."[28]

Matrix language-frame model

Carol Myers-Scotton's Matrix Language-Frame (MLF) model is the dominant model of
insertional code-switching.[28] The MLF model posits that there is a Matrix Language (ML) and
an Embedded Language (EL). In this case, elements of the Embedded Language are inserted
into the morphosyntactic frame of the Matrix Language. The hypotheses are as follows (MyersScotton 1993b: 7):
The Matrix Language Hypothesis states that those grammatical procedures in the central
structure in the language production system which account for the surface structure of the Matrix
Language + Embedded Language constituent (linguistics) are only Matrix Languagebased
procedures. Further, the hypothesis is intended to imply that frame-building precedes content
morpheme insertion. A Matrix Language can be the first language of the speaker or the language
in which the morphemes or words are more frequently used in speech, so the dominant language

is the Matrix Language and the other is the Embedded Language. A Matrix Language island is
a constituent composed entirely of Matrix Language morphemes.[31]
According to the Blocking Hypothesis, in Matrix Language + Embedded Language constituents,
a blocking filter blocks any Embedded Language content morpheme which is not congruent with
the Matrix Language with respect to three levels of abstraction regarding subcategorization.
"Congruence" is used in the sense that two entities, linguistic categories in this case, are
congruent if they correspond in respect of relevant qualities.
The three levels of abstraction are:

Even if the Embedded Language realizes a given grammatical category as a content

morpheme, if it is realized as a system morpheme in the Matrix Language, the Matrix
Language blocks the occurrence of the Embedded Language content morpheme. (A
content morpheme is often called an "open-class" morpheme, because they belong to
categories that are open to the invention of arbitrary new items. They can be made-up
words like "smurf", "nuke", "byte", etc. and can be nouns, verbs, adjectives, and some
prepositions. A system morpheme, e.g. function words and inflections, expresses the
relation between content morphemes and does not assign or receive thematic roles.)

The Matrix Language also blocks an Embedded Language content morpheme in these
constituents if it is not congruent with a Matrix Language content morpheme counterpart
in terms of theta role assignment.

Congruence between Embedded Language content morphemes and Matrix Language

content morphemes is realized in terms of their discourse or pragmatic functions.

Examples
1. Hindi/English
o life ko face kiijiye with himmat and faith in apane aap. (Code-switching)
o "Face life with courage and faith in self." (Translation)
2. Swahili/English
o hata wengine nasikia washawekwa cell. (Code-switching)
o "Even others I heard were put [in] cells." (Translation)
We see that example 1 is consistent with the Blocking Hypothesis and the system content
morpheme criteria, so the prediction is that the Hindi equivalents are also content morphemes.
Sometimes non-congruence between counterparts in the Matrix Language and Embedded
Language can be circumvented by accessing bare forms. "Cell" is a bare form and so the

thematic role of "cell" is assigned by the verb -wek- 'put in/on'; this means that the verb is a
content morpheme.
The Embedded Language Island Trigger Hypothesis states that when an Embedded Language
morpheme appears which is not permitted under either the Matrix Language Hypothesis or
Blocking Hypothesis, it triggers the inhibition of all Matrix Language accessing procedures and
completes the current constituent as an Embedded Language island. Embedded Language islands
consist only of Embedded Language morphemes and are well-formed by Embedded Language
grammar, but they are inserted in the Matrix Language frame. Therefore, Embedded Language
islands are under the constraint of Matrix Language grammar.

Examples
1. Swahili/English
o *Sikuona your barau ambayo uliipoteza. (Code-switching ungrammatical)
o "I didn't see your letter which you lost." (Translation)
2. Swahili/English
o *Nikamwambia anipe ruhusa niende ni-ka-check for wewe. (Code-switching,
ungrammatical)
o "And I told him he should give me permission so that I go and check for you."
(Translation)
o Nikamwambia anipe ruhusa niende ni-ka-check for you. (Code-switching,
grammatical)
Example 1 is ungrammatical (indicated by the leading asterisk) because "your" is accessed, so
the Embedded Language Island Trigger Hypothesis predicts that it must be followed by an
English head (e.g., "your letter") as an Embedded Language island. The reason is that possessive
adjectives are system morphemes. We see the same thing happen in example 2, which is
therefore ungrammatical. However, the correct way to finish the sentence is not "for wewe",
switching back to Swahili; rather, it should end with "for you", which would be an Embedded
Language island.
The Embedded Language Implicational Hierarchy Hypothesis can be stated as two subhypotheses:
1. The farther a constituent is from the main arguments of the sentence, the freer it is to
appear as an Embedded Language island.

2. The more formulaic in structure a constituent is, the more likely it is to appear as an
Embedded Language island. Stated more strongly, choice of any part of an idiomatic
expression will result in an Embedded Language island.[28]
The Implication Hierarchy of Embedded Language Islands:
1. Formulaic expressions and idioms (especially prepositional phrases expressing time and
manner, but also as verb phrase complements)
2. Other time and manner expressions
3. Quantifier expressions
4. Non-quantifier, non-time noun phrases as verb phrase complements
5. Agent Noun phrases
6. Theme role and case assigners, i.e. main finite verbs (with full inflections)
Examples
1. Wolof/French
o Le matin de bonne heure ngay joge Medina pour dem juilli. Suba tee nga fa war a
joge. (Code-switching)
o "Early in the morning you leave Medina to go to pray. Early in the morning you
should leave then." (Translation)
2. Swahili/English
o Ulikuwa ukiongea a lot of nonsense. (Code-switching)
o "You were talking a lot of nonsense." (Translation)
We see example 1 work because the French Embedded Language island Le matin de bonne
heure, "early in the morning", is a time expression. (Also, it is repeated in Wolof in the second
sentence.) In example 2, we see the quantifier a lot of is a predicted Embedded Language island.
Here we see an objective complement of a finite verb begin with the quantifier.

Constraint-free
Jeff MacSwan has posited a constraint-free approach to analyzing code-switching. This
approach views explicit reference to code-switching in grammatical analysis as tautological, and
seeks to explain specific instances of grammaticality in terms of the unique contributions of the
grammatical properties of the languages involved. MacSwan characterizes the approach with the

refrain, "Nothing constrains code-switching apart from the requirements of the mixed
grammars."[32] The approach focuses on the repudiation of any rule or principle which explicitly
refers to code-switching itself.[33] This approach does not recognize or accept terms such as
"matrix language", "embedded language", or "language frame", which are typical in constraintbased approaches such as the MLF Model.
Rather than posit constraints specific to language alternation, as in traditional work in the field,
MacSwan advocates that mixed utterances be analyzed with a focus on the specific and unique
linguistic contributions of each language found in a mixed utterance. Because these analyses
draw on the full range of linguistic theory, and each data set presents its own unique challenges,
a much broader understanding of linguistics is generally needed to understand and participate in
this style of codeswitching research.
For example, Cantone and MacSwan (2009)[34] analyzed word order differences for nouns and
adjectives in Italian-German codeswitching using a typological theory of Cinque that had been
independently proposed in the syntax literature; their account derives the word order facts of
Italian-German codeswitching from underlying differences between the two languages,
according to Cinque's theory.[citation needed]

Controversies
Much remains to be done before a more complete understanding of code-switching phenomena
is achieved. Linguists continue to debate apparent counter-examples to proposed code-switching
theories and constraints.[4][28][35]
The Closed-class Constraint, developed by Aravind Joshi, posits that closed class items
(pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.) cannot be switched.[36] The Functional Head
Constraint developed by Belazi et al. holds that code-switching cannot occur between a
functional head (a complementizer, a determiner, an inflection, etc.) and its complement
(sentence, noun-phrase, verb-phrase).[30] These constraints, among others like the Matrix
Language-Frame model, are controversial among linguists positing alternative theories, as they
are seen to claim universality and make general predictions based upon specific presumptions
about the nature of syntax.[4][35]
Myers-Scotton and MacSwan debated the relative merits of their approaches in a series of
exchanges published in 2005 in Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, issues 8(1) and 8(2).

Examples
In this section, segments that are switched from the primary language of the conversation are
shown in red.

Spanish and English

Researcher Ana Celia Zentella offers this example from her work with Puerto Rican SpanishEnglish bilingual speakers in New York City.[11] In this example, MARTA and her younger sister,
LOLITA, speak Spanish and English with ZENTELLA outside of their apartment building.
LOLITA: Oh, I could stay with Ana?
MARTA: but you could ask papi and mami to see if you could come down.
LOLITA: OK.
MARTA: Ana, if I leave her here would you send her upstairs when you leave?
ZENTELLA: Ill tell you exactly when I have to leave, at ten oclock. Y son las nueve y
cuarto. ("And its nine fifteen.")
MARTA: Lolita, te voy a dejar con Ana. ("Im going to leave you with Ana.") Thank you,
Ana.
Zentella explains that the children of the predominantly Puerto Rican neighbourhood speak both
English and Spanish: "Within the childrens network, English predominated, but code-switching
from English to Spanish occurred once every three minutes, on average."[11]

French and Tamil

This example of switching from French to Tamil comes from ethnographer Sonia Das's work
with immigrants from Jaffna, Sri Lanka, to Quebec.[37]
SELVAMANI: Parce que nimporte quand quand jenregistre ma voix a laire dun garon.
([in French] "Because whenever I record my voice I sound like a guy.")
Alors, ts, je me ferrai pas poign. ("So, you know, Im not going to be had.")
[laughter]
SELVAMANI: ennat, ennat, enna romba cirit? ([in Tamil] "What, what, what's so
funny?")
Alors, quest-ce que je disais? ([in French] "So, what was I saying?")
SELVAMANI, who moved from Sri Lanka to Quebec as a child and now identifies as Qubcois,
speaks to Das in French. When Selvamani's sister, Mala, laughs, SELVAMANI switches to Tamil to
ask Mala why she is laughing. After this aside, SELVAMANI continues to speak in French.
SELVAMANI also uses the word ts ("you know", contraction of tu sais) and the expression je me
ferrai pas poign [sic] ("I will not be handled"), which are not standard French but are typical of
the working-class Montreal dialect Joual.[37]

Translanguaging
Translanguaging is the dynamic process whereby multilingual language users mediate complex
social and cognitive activities through strategic employment of multiple semiotic resources to
act, to know and to be.[1]

It is believed that the term was first coined in Welsh by Cen Williams as trawsieithu; it can be
controlled by both the student and the teacher. It maximises the child's bilingual ability and is
being used across the world.[2]
The 'trans' prefix emphasizes: - the fluid practices that go beyond (transcend) socially
constructed language systems and structures to engage diverse multiple meaning-making systems
and subjectivities
- the transformative capacity of translanguaging practices not only for language systems, but also
individuals cognition and social structures
- the transdisciplinary consequences of re-conceptualizing language, language learning and
language use for linguistics, psychology, sociology and education
When talking about bilingualism, some scholars consider translanguaging as opposed to a
"double monolingualism".[3]