<strong>Art</strong>icle IV.2 Toward A Better <strong>Un</strong>derstanding <strong>of</strong> CodeSwitching and <strong>In</strong>terlanguage in BilingualityLuisa DuranThe Journal <strong>of</strong> Educational Issues <strong>of</strong> Language Minority Students, v14 p69-88, Winter 1994.<strong>In</strong>troductionThis paper attempts to help teachers involved in bilingual instruction come to a betterunderstanding <strong>of</strong> two important aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole process <strong>of</strong> bilingual development.Developmental knowledge should aid instructional knowledge, and instructional knowledgeshould aid development.The two major aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bilingual development process which will be outlined here are <strong>the</strong>notion <strong>of</strong> interlanguage and <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> code-switching. It is important that <strong>the</strong>se nonnormativeaspects <strong>of</strong> bilingual development be understood better from linguistic perspectives.There seems to be much misunderstanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se two phenomena and how to treat <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong>classroom.Before a focus on interlanguage and code-switching is done, it is important to summarize whatwe know about language in its broadest and most varied forms, that is, in its monolingual,bilingual, multilingual forms, and al<strong>the</strong>a stages <strong>of</strong> each.Commonality <strong>of</strong> All Language FormsThe language development process is a creative process if it is anything at all. The l<strong>ates</strong>taccounts on language development across cultures underscore <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> an orderly andsystematic linguistic process which is half imitation and half invention (Pfaff, 1987; Berko-Gleason, 1993; Edmundson, 1985). At <strong>the</strong> same time that language development is orderly andsystematic it is also complete yet not totally complete. While it does arrive at significantconsolidations, accomplishments, and achievements (what we may call stages), Durkin et al.(1986) say that <strong>the</strong>se "will be subjected to addition, elaboration, refinement, re application andre-organization in <strong>the</strong> years ahead" (p. ix). Acquisition or development as both a synchronic(short-term) and as a diachronic (long-term) process is now better understood by those who studylanguage. Because we have come to understand both <strong>the</strong> continuous and discontinuouscharacteristics <strong>of</strong> language development we have also begun to focus our attention on both <strong>the</strong>normative and <strong>the</strong> non-normative patterns <strong>of</strong> language behavior along this more holisticcontinuum. Nonnormative forms <strong>of</strong> language are now a major focus <strong>of</strong> linguistic study inmonolingual, bilingual, and multilingual development. What was and still is many times thought<strong>of</strong> by lay people as "strange," "deviant," "confusing," or “broken" language is being appreciatedby linguists, psycholinguists, and sociolinguists as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total natural language developmentand acquisition process. Continued research efforts in this area, along with <strong>the</strong> traditionalnormative focus, are yielding a portrait <strong>of</strong> language development which may be more accurateand more helpful to many but especially to those concerned with how to support <strong>the</strong> naturalcapacities and learning strategies <strong>of</strong> language learners. This may lead us to a more holistic androbust explanation and description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> language development or <strong>the</strong> languagelearning/acquisition continuum, spiral, or cycle across <strong>the</strong> life span, across cultures, and acrosssituations, contexts, and domains.© 2008 Dr. Ca<strong>the</strong>rine CollierAll Rights Reserved130
We will now look at two examples <strong>of</strong> non-normative linguistic behavior found in bothdeveloping bilinguals and in more developed ones. The term non-normative is used here to meanthose aspects <strong>of</strong> language behavior which are not seen as normal as o<strong>the</strong>r language forms bymost lay people. <strong>In</strong> bilinguality <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> more general notion which linguists call crosslinguisticinteraction or cross linguistic influence. While several particular forms <strong>of</strong> crosslinguisticinteractions are found in <strong>the</strong> literature, I will review only two in this paper,interlanguage and code-switching, and only in an introductory way.The <strong>In</strong>terlanguage NotionThe notion <strong>of</strong> interlanguage is central in <strong>the</strong> explanation <strong>of</strong> bilingual-learner language or SecondLanguage Acquisition (SLA) (Hamers &Blanc, 1990). <strong>In</strong>terlanguage is <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>interaction among <strong>the</strong> many language acquisition device factors in any two ( in multilingualsituations) languages developing more or less simultaneously. This linguistic behavior isdescribed similarly by many researchers in second-language acquisition and bilinguality studies.The term was first coined by Larry Selinker in 1972, and many o<strong>the</strong>rs have since expanded <strong>the</strong>notion. According <strong>the</strong> Hamers and Blanc (1990), between <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> one language or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<strong>the</strong>re exists for <strong>the</strong> bilingual speaker a whole range <strong>of</strong> intermediary strategies which include <strong>the</strong>modification <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r code and <strong>the</strong> relative use <strong>of</strong> both (see figures 1-8 in appendix ii).<strong>In</strong>terlanguage maybe viewed as an adaptive strategy in which <strong>the</strong> speaker tries to speak <strong>the</strong>interlocutor’s L1 although he has little pr<strong>of</strong>iciency in it. This strategy uses simplification,reduction, overgeneralization, transfer, formulaic language, omissions, substitutions, andrestructurings (Selinker, 1972).Ellis (1985) explains interlanguage as <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>oretical constructwhich underlies <strong>the</strong> attempts <strong>of</strong> SLA researchers to identify <strong>the</strong> stages <strong>of</strong>development through which L2 learners pass on <strong>the</strong>ir way to L2 or near L2pr<strong>of</strong>iciency. He sayslearners do not progress from zero knowledge <strong>of</strong> a target rule to perfect knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rule.They progress through a series <strong>of</strong> interim or developmental stages on <strong>the</strong>ir way to targetlanguage competence. <strong>In</strong>terlanguage is described by many as permeable, dynamic, changing, andyet systematic (Corder, 1975; Selinker, 1972). It may undergo relative fossilization and relativechange, but it reveals an underlying cognitive process even though its surface structure seems <strong>the</strong>opposite because it does not match conventional forms <strong>of</strong> what is linguistically correct.According to Andersen (1984), interlanguage goes from a nativization process to adenativization one. For Andersen <strong>the</strong>re has been too much focus on <strong>the</strong> acquisition <strong>of</strong> targetlanguage features ra<strong>the</strong>r than on <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> interlanguage construction itself. For him secondlanguage acquisition by any o<strong>the</strong>r name can and should be characterized in positive terms andprinciples that govern <strong>the</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> meaning-to-form and function-to-form relationships.For Klein (1986) interlanguages or learner-language varieties should be viewed not only assystematic as well as variable but also as creative with rules unique to itself and not just aborrowed form <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r languages. He says that however imperfect from a normative point <strong>of</strong>view, <strong>the</strong>se means represent <strong>the</strong> learner's current repertoire and, as such, a learner variety <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>target language. He concludes that <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> language acquisition can be construed as aseries <strong>of</strong> transitions from one variety to <strong>the</strong> next. Pit Corder (1981) defines <strong>the</strong> structuralproperties <strong>of</strong> interlanguage as: (a) a simple morphological system, (b) a more or less fixed wordorder, (c) a simple personal pronoun system, (d) a small number <strong>of</strong> grammatical function words,(e) little or no use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> copula, and (f) <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> an ar<strong>ticle</strong> system. He describes <strong>the</strong>interlanguage notion as "transitional language" and presents a model which is inaccurate invarious respects but is always more or less complete. For Corder it is a working model, a© 2008 Dr. Ca<strong>the</strong>rine CollierAll Rights Reserved131
- Page 2 and 3:
"Those who arrive by age 12 or 13 m
- Page 5:
Article I.2 Are Signed Languages "R
- Page 8 and 9:
Biological analyses of the status o
- Page 10 and 11:
and beyond, speaking and signing ch
- Page 12 and 13:
Conclusion: Are Signed Languages Re
- Page 14 and 15:
Article I.3 The Interpreter: Has a
- Page 16 and 17:
A few weeks earlier, I had called F
- Page 18 and 19:
“We struggled even getting to the
- Page 20 and 21:
herself by strapping a cassette rec
- Page 22 and 23:
In 1998, after nine years as the ch
- Page 24 and 25:
momentary burst of excitement that
- Page 26 and 27:
can shape core grammar. Because the
- Page 28 and 29:
The authors compared animal and hum
- Page 30 and 31:
monkey moved. He followed it with h
- Page 32 and 33:
delight, fear, laughter, and surpri
- Page 34 and 35:
Piipaío in a hut: Pirahã huts typ
- Page 36 and 37:
LEP students, and equitable organiz
- Page 38 and 39:
4. Second language development crea
- Page 41 and 42:
curriculum or "teaching to the test
- Page 43 and 44:
portfolio work was scanned and stor
- Page 45 and 46:
experiences of many groups of stude
- Page 47 and 48:
While not disagreeing that interpre
- Page 49 and 50:
sound educational practice, however
- Page 51 and 52:
arises from the efforts to abstract
- Page 53 and 54:
Article II.2 Cross-Cultural Communi
- Page 55 and 56:
males who can serve as positive rol
- Page 57 and 58:
Understanding another culture is a
- Page 59 and 60:
Pets and AnimalsWhich animals are v
- Page 61 and 62:
to teach standard English is reflec
- Page 63 and 64:
Asking personal questions of a pers
- Page 65 and 66:
Using Cross Cultural Communication
- Page 67 and 68:
Why Do Nonstandard English-Speaking
- Page 69 and 70:
Before beginning to teach standard
- Page 71 and 72:
• Negative attitudes toward low p
- Page 73 and 74:
New standardized tests and assessme
- Page 75 and 76:
Each of the behaviors listed above
- Page 77 and 78:
Article II.3 Hard Work Hypothesis:
- Page 79 and 80: each point higher in SES, students
- Page 81 and 82: This case does not provide strong s
- Page 83 and 84: Article II.4 Language Acquisition a
- Page 85 and 86: 1992, p. XI). These researchers, wh
- Page 87 and 88: comprehend a word within a specific
- Page 89 and 90: more to the truthfulness of the chi
- Page 91 and 92: This idea of “semilingualism” c
- Page 93 and 94: Article III.1 A Brief Description o
- Page 95 and 96: take different lengths of time to c
- Page 97 and 98: example, should involve the same co
- Page 99 and 100: As with all stages of BICS acquisit
- Page 101 and 102: Assessment techniques at stage 3 ca
- Page 103 and 104: different. Therefore, the social di
- Page 105: integrative motivation. Basically,
- Page 109 and 110: (Ellis, 1985; Hakuta, 1986). Howeve
- Page 111 and 112: that sociocultural processes have o
- Page 113 and 114: Article III.3 How Children Acquire
- Page 115 and 116: phonetic units (unique to signed la
- Page 117 and 118: Article III.4 Toward a Sociocultura
- Page 119 and 120: emember is that the fundamental goa
- Page 121 and 122: The best practices models can be th
- Page 123 and 124: By focusing on the dialectic betwee
- Page 125 and 126: intergenerational wisdom shared by
- Page 127 and 128: Daily Realities RecappedThe above v
- Page 129: traditions. At a time in our histor
- Page 133 and 134: Speakers communicate fluently, main
- Page 135 and 136: question the effects of such attitu
- Page 137 and 138: Article IV.3 Culture Change: Effect
- Page 139 and 140: and psychological characteristics o
- Page 141 and 142: Contraryto what wewere expecting, t
- Page 143 and 144: Article V.1 Assessment in ESL & Bil
- Page 145 and 146: vocabulary does the student lack?Is
- Page 147 and 148: whether they are LEP and to provide
- Page 149 and 150: Fourth, ESL and bilingual program s
- Page 151 and 152: competent reader/writer. All versio
- Page 153 and 154: Table 1Comparison of Recent Accultu
- Page 155 and 156: unilinear model, which measures the
- Page 157 and 158: an English-only instructional progr
- Page 159 and 160: Article V.3 Assessment of English L
- Page 161 and 162: 8. Change answers only for a very g
- Page 163 and 164: Riles, 1979; Jose P. v Ambac, 1983)
- Page 165 and 166: proficiency is often underestimated
- Page 167 and 168: Finally, when second language reade
- Page 169 and 170: for their decisions, noting issues
- Page 171 and 172: As mentioned above, when the transi
- Page 173 and 174: ather than generic adjectives and t
- Page 175 and 176: their imagined points of view. Ther
- Page 177 and 178: English texts and demonstrate progr
- Page 179: using inter-district teams). In the