Selected Bilinguals Second Language Gram

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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


List of Figures

Figure no. Figure title Page no.

1 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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,


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


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


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


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


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.)


(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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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).


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Selected Bilinguals Second Language Gram

Documents

Transcript of Selected Bilinguals Second Language Gram