Selected Bilinguals Second Language Gram

GRAMMATICAL
PROFICIENCY AND
CODE-SWITCHING
Running
head: GRAMMATICAL
PROFICIENCY
AND CODE-SWITCHING
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
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<.05 was proven between grammatical
proficiency and the proficiency-driven CS mode while an inverse relationship was
confirmed between grammatical proficiency and the deficiency-driven CS mode.
Afterwards, the findings for Early and Late Bilinguals were then compared. Results show
that there is a difference in the level of grammatical proficiency and the production of CS
between the two groups. Upon further analysis, it is suggested that the Early Bilinguals
proficiency is one level higher than Late Bilinguals as a result of their educational
background. The effect of the CS modes on grammar is also more observable in Early
Bilinguals than in Late Bilinguals. Lastly, the two bilingual groups did not have any
difference in their production of deficiency-driven CS. Considering the findings, the
study positions itself in favor of CS as a pedagogical tool, particularly in predicting
grammatical proficiency.
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.
Test Items for Each Grammar Point . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Grammatical Proficiency Scores of Early and Late Bilinguals. . . . . . . . . .64
Base Language of Early and Late Bilinguals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Proficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals

within clusters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Proficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals

between clusters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Deficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals

between clusters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Significant Relationship between Grammatical Proficiency

and Intrasentential CS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Significant difference of CS between High and Low

Grammatical Proficiency Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Significant difference of CS between Early and Late Bilinguals . . . . . . . 71
List of Figures
Figure no.
1
Figure title
Page no.
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
10
factor that affects ones ability to code-switch. It is with this premise that linguists all
over the world sought to understand this phenomenon and the system behind it.
Probably one of the most famous types of CS among past researchers (especially
in the field of education) is Intrasentential Code-Switching (also called code-mixing) that
explains the conscious and intentional shifts done by the speaker or writer within the
boundary of a sentence (Bista, 2010). Among all the other types, Intrasentential CS is
generally viewed as the one that requires grammatical proficiency. According to Poplack
(2004), Speakers who engage in the most complex type of Intrasentential codeswitching
generally turn out to be the most proficient in both of the contact languages (p. 14).
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that a lack of solid support for proficiency-driven CS
blocked its acceptance in schools and other formal institutions.
Following the researches that have explored CS and its links to grammar, formal
modes for Intrasentential CS were constructed by Poplack and Sankoff in 1988 and were
later adapted by Bautista (1998) into the Taglish patterns. Recent studies in the
Philippines now utilize Bautistas Taglish patterns as a basis for their research. Among
these, however, very few have explored the links between grammatical proficiency and
the use of Intrasentential CS. This need for a correlational study prompted the researcher
to further investigate the link between the two variables. Proving that grammatical
proficiency can affect CS would not only serve as a support for the theories long-debated
upon, it would also create new avenues for language assessment. This research intended
to achieve the mentioned aims by comparing the English grammatical proficiency scores
11
with the Intrasentential CS patterns utilized by selected private and public high school
students, who fit the qualities of Early and Late Bilinguals, respectively.
Review of Related Literature

Bilingualism.
Philippines is known to be a multilingual country, having over 175 different
dialects (Tempo, 2009) in addition to English as the mode of instruction in schools and to
Tagalog being the national language (now changed into the more inclusive term Filipino)
(Durano, 2009; Dumanig, David, & Symaco, 2012). Among these languages, Tagalog
and English dominate everyday use with the majority of the adult population
understanding Tagalog and 56 % of these adults being able to effectively utilize English
(Gonzales as cited by Melchers & Shaw, 2011). As a result of the rich linguistic identities
found in the Philippines, it follows that part of their daily life involves language mixing
resulting to colloquial language forms. Among all these colloquial languages, Taglish
(Tagalog-English) is perceived to be the most widely-used, eventually attracting majority
of the researchers to this specific language mix. In this study, the term Tagalog was
operationally defined as a language with a formal grammatical system, not a dialect
which may vary from one region to another. In this case, though both Tagalog and
Filipino can be used interchangeably, this research utilized the term Tagalog since it is
more specific, more convenient and mostly the term used in local CS studies.
Bilingualism is most often attributed to the wide use of two languages within a
community. For most parts of the Tagalog region (senate and offices included), the use of
12
Taglish has been deemed acceptable. Because of this, it is perceived as a natural

occurrence in the society (Smedley as cited by Durano, 2009). Aside from this, the
medium of instruction used in Philippine Schools since 1901 had been English (Moises,
2010) until the implementation of the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education
(MTB-MLE) in school year 2012-2013 (Deped, 2012). Because of this, the English
language in the academic setting is not uncommon, which undeniably supplies them with
extensive exposure to it. In Pascasios (2003/2004) research, it was observed that the
participants who did the most CS were professionals, students and employers, although
some employees made use of CS only when their superior initiated or, at other times,
when the conversation is purely in English.
In a bilingual community, such as the case of Filipino and English learners, the
level of grammatical proficiency is an important factor that affects how the bilingual
switches between two languages. This is especially essential since both languages are
processed during the use of the second language which, for most Filipinos, is English.
When a bilingual utilizes his or her second language (L2), the first language (L1) will
always interfere, activating the use of both languages in parallel (Van Hell & Dijkstra as
cited by Sunderman & Kroll, 2006).
Because of this parallel activation, most linguists believe that although some
bilinguals may develop equal linguistic skills for both the L1 and the L2, it is more likely
that their ability would favor one language system over another (Jacobson as cited by
Bolander, 2008; Andrews & Rusher, 2010). This unequal proficiency for the two
languages can further be explained by Hull and Vaids (2007) meta-analysis. Their study
13
suggests that languages can be either Left-Hemisphere dominant (Analytic) or RightHemisphere 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
14
Pulvermller (as cited in Manzini & Savoia, 2011), function words are processed
exclusively in the brains perisylvian cortex and is strongly left-lateralized in typical
right-handers. Given the definition of function words, this means that the processing of
syntax is also done in the left hemisphere. With these studies considered, it is therefore
evident that testing for proficiency must involve the kind of analysis levels only found in
Late Bilinguals rather than Early Bilinguals. Since the distinction between L1 and L2 is
more prominent in Late Bilinguals, it was assumed, for the purposes of this study, that L2
could be tested without much interference from L1.
In Van Hell and Tokowiczs (2010) neuro-analysis, it was found that syntatic
processing played a part in determining the brains hemispheres being used. They found
that the late bilinguals neurological activity presents a clear picture of the difference
between the L1 and L2 syntactic structure. Aside from this, variations in the participants
brain activities also indicated that syntactic structure and grammatical proficiency have a
strong link.
Aside from the neurological connections determined by the two language
structures, another relevant factor create the proficiency gap between Early and Late
Bilinguals socio-economic status. In a study by Keiffer (2008), it was discovered that
Early Bilinguals from language minorities can catch up with native speakers provided
that they share the same demographic factors. Students from both high and low-poverty
schools were observed and tested. It was discovered that those from high-poverty school
took more time to catch up, with their growth-rate trajectory elevating more slowly. In
another research by Pascasio (2003/2004), language proficiency of Filipinos was found to
15
be affected by their socio-economic status. This was in terms of their (1) social class and
(2) household amenities, meaning access to resources is indeed a factor in learning a
second language. In relation to resources, media exposure is also a factor in English
proficiency growth, especially in the Philippines where both languages are utilized. In the
previously mentioned study, it was also found that print media affected the proficiency
more than broadcast media. This is explainable due to the fact that Melchers and Shaw
(2011) found that English only comprised broadcast media by 40% whereas Filipino was
the dominant language with 60%. This excludes, however, the length of exposure and
preference of viewers. Besas (2009) research answers this question by stating that
majority (75%) of the students enrolled in a Public High School watched shows which
uses Taglish. Filipino-only shows were next with 19% of the students viewing it followed
by English-only shows with 14%. The last are the other languages with 6%. Either way,
socio-economic status as well as the preference for the colloquial language are factors
that affect CS.
Culture would also be a factor in assessing L2 proficiency of the participants. For
Guglielmis (2008) study, lack of group invariance was found within the Asian subgroup
since they came from different backgrounds. The cause of this was reported to be their
cultural differences in construct conceptualization, greater linguistic and cultural
heterogeneity and, for languages without a shared alphabetic structure (e.g. Chinese and
English), cross-language transfer difficulties. Without a consensus of both L1 and L2
culture, the speaker would find it difficult to switch between two languages as well as
exhibit a high level of proficiency.
16
In order to come to a full understanding of bilingualism, the history of bilingual

education in the Philippines must first be examined. The most significant regulation
regarding this would be the Bilingual Policy of 1974 which began the use of both Filipino
and English as initial mediums of instruction. During its implementation, Filipino was
used for subjects such as music, physical education, health, values education, civics,
social sciences and Filipino. On the other hand, English was used for subjects such as
mathematics, natural sciences, technical education and English subjects (Viado, 2007).
However, this division between the two mediums of instruction also resulted into a
considerable difference between the other subjects they encompassed. While the subjects
taught in Filipino were learned smoothly, those which were taught in English progressed
more slowly. This was evident in the Master Plan for Basic Education constructed by the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) which reported that low
proficiency in the English language hindered the students advancement in the technical
subjects (Yanagihara, 2007). These unexpected effects then prompted a re-examination of
the curriculum.
In 2002, the Basic Education Curriculum was introduced. This adapted the
Bilingual Policy and required both public and private schools to allocate 400 minutes per
week for the Filipino subject and 500 minutes per week for the English subject for the
grade one level (where the students age range from 6 to 7 years old). With this,
bilinguals who experienced the 2002 Basic Education Curriculumregardless of coming
from private or public schools can be assumed to have been exposed to this amount of
time per week. However, it was further noted that though the curriculum was the same,
17
the demographics between private and public schools were extremely different. The
major factors that draw the line between the second language acquisition in a private
school and that of a public school are (1) socio-economic factors, (2) teacher-related
factors, (3) inadequate learning materials and (4) the short and congested school
curriculum. In the same report, quality given by public school education was admitted to
be low (UNESCO-IBE, 2006/2007). It detailed that:
The availability of textbooks has been assured thanks to the Education for
All Programme. However, the other basic educational requirements such
as school buildings, teachers and instructional equipment have not been
fully provided. This led to the adoption of measures like increasing class
sizes, holding multiple shifts and assigning teaching overloads. Even with
such measures, school buildings and teachers are still inadequate (p. 26).
To further widen the gap, the private sector is more advantageous than the public
sector when it comes to pre-school education (i.e. education below grade one), especially
because of the two types of Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) program
offered in the Philippines. This is because the UNESCO-IBE (2006) categorizes public
pre-schools under Center-Based ECCD whereby the enrolment in this program is not
compulsory. On the other hand, private pre-schools are classified under School-based
ECCD where these private institutions require the said program in order for a pupil to
advance to elementary. Since the ECCD program incorporates both English and Filipino
during instruction, it can be inferred that students who have a purely private pre-school
18
background have had more exposure to the said languages more than those coming from
the public school.
For this current research, the fourth year high school students who have a purely
private school background (preferably with ECCD exposure) were classified as Early
Bilinguals while those who have a purely public education (preferably without ECCD
exposure) were classified as Late Bilinguals.
Grammatical proficiency.
According to Kroeger (2005), grammar is the set of rules for all structural
properties of a language, which intends to describe its sentence patterns. One of the two
dimensions of grammar that has been the focus of many studies is syntax. This covers
grammatical structure of groups, clauses and sentences (Baker, 2011), which include (1)
word order, (2) constituent/phrase structure, (3) sentence types, (4) special constructions,
(5) modifiers and intensifiers, (6) coordination and correlation (7) subordination (8)
embedding (Center for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2002). Aside from
understanding syntax, Wright (2010) states that high level of functional grammar
proficiency also requires having the knowledge of at least the common classes of speech
defined in formal grammar. Grammatical proficiency, as used in this study, therefore
refers to the aptitude of an individual to analyze and utilize such components of language.
In addition to the fundamentals mentioned above, experimental evidence have
shown that individuals do not perceive sentences as a string of words but rather in the
form of constituents, which are natural parts of a sentence that can stand alone (e.g.
puppy, girl not a, found) (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2011). These basic elements of
19
syntax give way for a variety of transformations that can be done inside the confines of a
sentence. When these sentence transformations occur, it is a requirement that
grammatical choices are drawn from a pre-defined set of options or rules (Parker &
Riley, 2010; Baker, 2011). From various descriptive studies, it was concluded that these
restrictions come in the form of patterns (more technically known as syntactic templates)
which are distinct for every language (Payvey, 2010).
In these patterns are smaller units that are called syntactic categories (or simply
parts of speech). The placement of these unitswhich are usually words or phrases
determines the sentences overall meaning. Aside from the placement, the lexical density
of each individual category also carries a considerable effect; thus, categories can either
be major or minor. Major categories can function as heads of phrases (i.e. nouns, verbs,
adjectives, adverbs and prepositions). On the other hand, minor categories are
structurally-dependent words with the main function of holding the sentence together (i.e.
Conjunctions, interjections and determiners) (Kroeger, 2005). On the basis of meaning
(not structure), major categories are called content words whereas minor categories are
function words (Chung & Pennebaker, 2007).
In a study by Thompson (2003), the category that prompted the most codeswitching (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
20
sentences followed by the prepositions, which fall under the minor category.
Furthermore, it can be inferred that these categories would be the probable determiners of
grammatical proficiency because of their key role in syntactic analysis and formation.
Indeed, the sensitivity to syntax indicates grammatical proficiency. Several
studies have confirmed that proficient learners tend to be more sensitive to syntactic
violations which the less proficient often overlook. In a study by Zyzik (2008), it was
illustrated that lower-proficiency learners rely heavily on semantic strategies whereas the
higher proficiency learners categorize sentences according to structure. Those who
participated in Hertels (2003) study also exhibited different levels of proficiency when it
came to word order translation. Here, the inversion from subject-verb and verb-subject
was observed among learners of different proficiency levels. It was found that those of
lower proficiency stuck with the subject-verb order while the more proficient ones
exhibited the use of both inversions, depending on the meaning that should be conveyed.
Lastly, the experiment by Marinis, Roberts, Fester, and Clahsen (2008) also explains that
non-native comprehenders underuse information gained from the word order of their
second language. Because of these studies, it cannot be questioned that syntax affects
grammar proficiency more than any other aspect.
Based on the observation by McEwan-Fujita (2010), adult second-language
learners find difficulties in transferring especially when juggling two structurally
dissimilar languages. Fortunately, the syntactic categories of both Tagalog and English
are closely alike wherein all the categories found in English are present in Tagalog, with
21
some additions (Lacsamana, 2003). This concept is supported by Sebba (2009) stating
that:
Congruence or equivalence of categories of the grammar is implicit in
many accounts of the syntax of CS even where it is not mentioned. The
cross-linguistic equivalence of categories is in keeping with Chomskyan
ideas of language acquisition, which require that all children be capable of
in principle of acquiring the same categories (p. 41).
With almost the same categories, Tagalog and English users find little or no
difficulty in switching between them. Filipino respondents in Borlongans (2009a) study
noted that English is also among the most comprehensible to them, making it one of the
languages that they are comfortable with. This similarity between the two languages is a
result of grammar universality, which is the trait of grammar that transcends cultures
(Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2011).
Another major similarity between Tagalog and English is the position of the verb
and the object. Both Tagalog and English take on the Verb-Object position (VO).
Nonetheless, it is possible for both to switch to the inverse Object-Verb position (OV). In
such cases when either Tagalog or English take on an inverse position during CS, the
result will have four possible patterns (Chan, 2009):
(1) VO order will have verb from VO language
(e.g. She got yung libro niya kahapon.)
(2) OV order will have verb from OV language
(e.g. Only small prizes ang ipamimigay nila.)
22
(3) VO order will have verb from OV language

(e.g. Grade one and grade two pupils lang ang bumati sa akin kanina.)
(4) OV order will have verb from VO language
(e.g. Pritong isda at sopas were what they ate for lunch)
The differences found between two languages, however, are results of arbitrary
linguistic conventions shared by a community that causes some grammatical rules to be
re-shaped by the different societies (Kroeger, 2005). For example, Japanese learners are
better than English learners at acquiring certain grammatical items in Chinese, which is
most likely caused by the difference in culture (Yuan, 2010). In contrast, when the
grammatical rules are the same in two languages, the same brain activity is observed, as
in the case of Sabourin and Stowes (2008) study. But since the vocabulary is completely
different in most languages, this same manner of how the brain processes languages
becomes impossible in lexically-driven constructs. In Sunderman and Kroll (2006), it was
found that both proficient and non-proficient learners had trouble with lexical items. This
goes to show how syntax and vocabulary are poles apart when it comes to language
testing.
In the Philippines, there is a widespread issue in terms of applying the
grammatical concepts during actual communication. For example, many Filipino high
school students have mastered grammar but cannot apply it during speaking. This
happens because first, they fail to utilize the language habitually and second, their
exposure is limited and is mostly academic. Similarly, Early Bilinguals do maintain their
23
habitual use of their second language (provided no attrition occurs) whereas Late
Bilinguals are only exposed to the language when in school. Because of this disparity in
language use and exposure, the overall English program offered by the school should be
given much weight, especially for those schools with students who fall under the second
type. Before the curriculum change in school year 2012-2013, however, the English
program observed was highly focused on enhancing grammar and less of actual
communication. The result was, as stated before, the difficulty in applying the concepts in
grammar (Monderin, 2005). This shows that grammatical proficiency does not
automatically equate with language proficiency.
Focusing on specific grammatical proficiency levels, it is a common fact that the
terms for each level varies from one international testing body to another. However, the
descriptions of these proficiency scales are more or less the same when compared. As
stated in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, linguistic
proficiency ranges from four to six levels. In general, these levels are: beginner,
elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, high intermediate and advanced (Retrieved
from http://ngl.cengage.com/pages/cef.html).
Though the understanding of grammar contributes largely to the improvement of
the overall language proficiency, most researchers have focused on the four macro skills
(i.e. listening, speaking, reading, writing) wherein only one-fourth of the test is allocated
for grammar. Nevertheless, significant findings can be obtained from these studies. In
Ultram (2008), the perceived English proficiency of first year college students are on the
beginning level. On the other hand, another study showed that when an actual proficiency
24
test is administered, the same level of respondents obtained an intermediate level-score.

Senega, Maranan, Lacson, Escala, and Palcon (2008) explained that the intermediate
level attained under the grammar test is described as having the ability to ask and
answer questions and can speak in discrete sentences and strings of sentences on topics
that are either autobiographical or related primarily to his or her immediate environment
(p. 98).
In Llanes-Leaos (2007) study, the perceived level of language proficiency was
also tested in relation to language use. The results showed that although majority of the
teachers were comfortable with English, the students preferred a mixture of English and
Filipino since it gave them greater ease in learning. In relation to this, it was found that
students hesitate to speak in English because of their difficulty in finding appropriate
words to express ideas. Second only to this reason is the fear of being laughed at or
ridiculed. In the perceived proficiency scoring, majority said they were most proficient in
reading.
Code-switching (CS).
The formation of Taglish sentences relies on a process called Code-switching
(CS), which is an inherent bilingual skill that allows one to combine words or phrases
from two languages in one discourse. Poplack (2004), further describes CS from the
structural perspective as the utterance-internal juxtaposition, in unintegrated form, of
overt linguistic elements from two or more languages, with no necessary change of
interlocutor or topic (p. 1).
25
In the past, CS had been frowned upon in formal institutions because it was
perceived to be a strategy bilinguals use to make up for their deficiencies in both their
first language ( L1) and second language ( L2). Nevertheless, the results of recent studies
proved that CS can indeed be proficiency-driven. Viswamohan (2004) supports such
point by stating that writers often use CS to add creativity into their work. The switches
aid the writers in exhibiting wit, engaging in irony and euphemism, making puns,
translating proverbs and emphasizing key points. Aside from this, Taglish was also found
to dominate the ads in newspapers to assert, illustrate, identify, explain or give an order
or advice (Dayag, 2002).
The place of CS in schools, unfortunately, is still questionable. Martin (2006)
begins her study by introducing a Philippine universitys implementation of English-Only
Policy that created inconveniences during class interaction. The results of the study
illustrated that the students and staff of this university preferred to disregard the policy
and continue using CS. Majority of CS utterances were made by Science teachers as a
pedagogical tool, which is thought to motivate student response and action, ensue rapport
and solidarity, promote shared meaning, check student understanding, and maintain the
teaching narrative. In Castros (2004) observation, translating also helped students in
facilitating planning and revising processes during writing. It showed that students were
able to attend to higher level writing goals when thinking aloud in Tagalog even when the
output is in English.
Macizo, Bajo, and Paolieri (2012) emphasized the importance of CS in conceptual
representation. Results of their study show that supressing CS, which support inhibition
26
tasks, create a discontinuity in representing concepts. Because of this obstruction, the

bilingual takes a longer time to process either language. Aside from this, the previously
mentioned study reveals that bilinguals are slower to switch from their L2 to their L1
than from L1 to L2. This describes how the more dominant language, almost always the
L1, determines the concepts formed in the weaker language (L2).
For bilinguals, CS cannot happen without enough attention unlike in
monolinguals with whom syntactic arrangement comes automatically (Kovelman, et al.
as cited by Fava & Hull, 2010). This attention must be explicit especially since the two
languages are processed in parallel during discourse or else the meaning cannot be
delivered correctly (Shook & Marian, 2010). CS formed as a result of inattention would
most likely be distorted, forming an awkward string of words not adhering to the predefined 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
27
separately. The results of this study points out that phonological awareness does not
necessarily affect CS as much as the other factors do.
Aside from the neurolinguistic nature of CS, studies have also discovered that
social interaction has considerable effects on participants CS. Goldbarg (2009)
mentioned that the level of intimacy would affect the level of speech formality. Thus,
the more familiar the participant feels to whom s/he is speaking or writing to, the more
informal the language would be (thus more occurances of CS would be achieved). This is
constant with Pascasios (2003/2004) research wherein domain and role relationship are
variables that significantly affect language use. This means that the choice of language
depends on the person with whom the speaker is conversing (e.g. parent, teacher, police
officer) as well as the context in which the discourse is done (formal or informal).
Another finding showed that politeness is a factor that prompts code-switching among
Taglish users. Since Tagalog is more sensitive when relaying domain and role
relationships, it was found that females code-switched more than the males to express
their politeness (Yague, 2007). Meanwhile, Cardenas-Claros and Isharyantis study
(2009) established that researcher-triggered CS where certain CS patterns would be
initiated by the researcher, results to a reciprocal response from the participants by 78%.
In more recent local studies, Taglish was concluded to adhere to no formal
grammatical system nor is it related to proficiency; rather, it takes on a social role as a
discursive strategy (Dench, 2004; Bugayong, 2011). However, Bautista (2004)
emphasizes that using CS as a discursive strategy is only highly evident in proficiencydriven CS. Meaning, one has to have a fair grasp of both languages in order to use CS for
28
communicative efficiency. Deficiency-driven CS is the opposite of the first type

mentioned because it is prompted by lack of ability to communicate using a single
language system. Based on how Bautista coined these types of CS, both are indeed
related to and affected by proficiency.
Several approaches have sought to define the exact nature of CS and the rules that
govern it. Among these approaches of CS is the grammatical approach, which is
regulated by a system coined as code-switching constraints (Reihl, 2005). This explains
the points in a sentence where CS can occur and are categorized into four constraints:
Tag-like CS, Extrasentential CS, Intrasentential CS, Free Morpheme Constraint
(Kailasam, 2010). The first three constraints were found to exist in the Philippine setting,
as concluded by Regala-Flores (2011).
Each of these CS constraints requires certain grammatical proficiency in both L1
and L2 in order to be correctly followed. Intersentential CS (the switch that occurs at
clauses or sentences) is widely acknowledged as the most common CS for lowproficiency 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
29
CS constraint was also the same for the private school students in Metilas (2007)
research where 44.3% of utterances was composed of intersentential CS, 35.4% for
Intrasentential CS and 20.2% for tag-switches (another term for extrasentential CS).
Here, it is evident that both proficiency level and discourse form (either spoken or
written) have an effect on the mode of CS being used.
Regarding the age of L2 acquisition, Zirker (2007) found no statistical difference
between the CS types used by the 26 participants. It was noted that both Early and Late
Bilinguals had mixed preferences when using inter-sentential and Intrasentential CS.
Nonetheless, it was observed that it took Late Bilinguals a relatively longer time span to
processes CS than the Early Bilinguals.
For this study, only Intrasentential Taglish patterns were the ones equated with
the grammatical proficiency scores. Syntax, after all, comprises the largest part of
grammar and it is Intrasentential CS that brings out the highest involvement of syntactic
analysis. Boztepe (2005) adds, ...only Intrasentential code-switching is relevant to the
question of syntactic constraints (p.5).
Poplack (2004) summarized the four empirically-established strategies for
Intrasentential CS which are: Smooth CS, Flagged CS, Constituent Insertion and Nonce
Borrowing. The frequency of these Intrasentential types were investigated by Borlongan
(2009) in the Philippine setting wherein Smooth CS accounted for 78.08% of the total CS
utterances. This was followed by Constituent Insertion at 14.7%, Nonce Borrowing at
5.41% and Non-smooth (or Flagged) CS at 1.8% . However, the data gathered in this
30
study was not equated to the participants grammatical proficiency levels but to their
tendency to deviate from the implemented English-Only Policy.
An utterance is considered Smooth CS if found to adhere to the Theory of
Equivalence or Equivalence Constraint that says that L1 and L2 must switch at the same
part of the sentence (or switch site) which preserves the grammatical construction of the
constituents adjacent to it (Poplack as cited by Treffers-Daller, 2005).
In contrast, Flagged switches can be of two types: Functional Flagging (whereby
Flagging is done to create an artistic effect or emphasis) or Deficiency-driven Flagging (a
result of production difficulties caused by deficiency) (Poplack, 2004). Watson (2005)
presented in detail the Continuum of Interactional Co-operation where Flagging is used
as either a reduction or an achievement strategy. Among these are: appeals for assistance,
direct self-initiated other repairs, in direct self-initiated other repairs, self-initiated selfrepairs 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
31
Constituent Insertions are dependent on the particular society rather than on language
typology. Borlongans (2009b) research in Taglish CS concluded that Constituent
Insertions appear as tag expressions, enclitics, and the Tagalog adverbial parang
(meaning like) and the occurrence of such are very few compared to the percentage of
Smooth CS.
Nonce Borrowing (also called loan-other words) are singly occurring words from
the Donor Language which are surrounded by words or phrases from the Recipient
Language. Nonce Borrowings are not recurrent nor are they widespread in a community
and it is for this reason that Nonce Borrowing is not considered as part of the recipient
language system even though it is familiar to that particular person (Stammers &
Deuchar, 2012). Though this type of Intrasentential CS is almost undistinguishable, the
recent findings by Stammers and Deuchar indicate that Nonce Borrowings integration
depends on the frequency of its occurrence in the community. In the absence of such
data, Poplack, Wheeler, and Westwood (as cited by Boztepe, 2005) propose that words
be analyzed according to their morphological/ syntactic integration, phonological
integration or the entire lexicon (content words) of the individual.
With Tagalog as the recipient language, the Nonce Borrowings can occur in the
form of technical and academic terminologies (Regala-Flores, 2011) whereas with
English as the recipient language, these can occur through local lexicalisations (e.g.
barkada), foreignisms (e.g. lechon), which are culturally-bound. Sometimes, these also
occur as tautonym (e.g. standby meaning idler or bystander) or heteronyms (e.g. carabao,
32
calamansi and yaya) (Melchers & Shaw, 2011). In these cases, culture becomes an
essential factor in assessing the two language structures.
Also relying on the frequency of use is Lexical Borrowing. This type of
borrowing is characterized by the presence of loan words, which are foreign words that
have become fully-integrated into the community. Although it may look exactly like a
Nonce Borrowing, it functions as part of the L1 linguistic system and is no different from
that recipient language. For example, the phrase thank you is considered a lexical
borrowing since it is widespread in the Philippine setting. Haspelmath (2009) finishes his
chapter on lexical borrowing by stating that it is not in any way dependent on codeswitching (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
33
recipient language), which is the main language in a code-switched utterance to which a

majority of phonological and morphological features of discourse can be attributed
(p.6). Cantone (2005) stated that the base language can be determined by the word order
prominent in the sentence, to which the rest of the code-switched parts adhere. This
implies that both L1 and L2 can serve as the base language, depending on the structure of
the sentence. Findings of Cantones research illustrated that adjectives and prepositions
determined the base language instead of the nouns that followed it. According to Backus
and Dorleijn (2009), the previously mentioned dominance of one language during CS is
called insertional CS. It is possible though that both language structures are equally at
play during a switch and this is termed as alternational CS. In this case, the two language
structures converge in such a way that the dominance of one language is
undistinguishable. Poplack and Sankoff (as cited by Adamou, 2010) state that similar
languages, therefore, would produce alternational CS whereas typologically distinct
languages will mostly utilize insertional CS. According to Bugayong (2011), using
English as a base language was more common in e-mails with 124 occurrences than using
Filipino as a base language, which only had 87 occurences.
The base language has its roots in the Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model
constructed by Myers-Scotton. The MLF model advocates the importance of concepts
formed in the more dominant language (called the Matrix Language) that conversely
affects the less dominant one (Embedded Language) (Namba, n.d.). The Matrix language
is therefore similar with the base language. However, for the purposes of this study, the
latter term was used.
34
CS can either be in spoken or written from (Bista, 2010). For past CS studies,
most methods of data gathering were done through transcribing oral responses of
participants. This is because, in spoken discourse, participants tend to code-switch more
using different varieties and levels of CS (Callahan as cited by Jalal, 2010). While written
CS is still considered as under-researched, Sebbas (2005) study concluded that the
conversational tone used in spoken CS can be achieved in authentic forms of written CS
such as e-mails, chats, etc. where the space is usually unregulated. This will prompt more
use of CS among the participants than that of regulated formal writing. According to
Cardenas-Claros and Isharyanti (2009), the main difference between written and spoken
CS is that Written language tends towards structural complexity, formality and
abstraction [while] spoken language is more context-dependent and structurally simpler
(pp. 71-72). Markus (2008) adds that, aside from authenticity, spoken forms can be more
precise than writing in practical applications, especially when testing syntagmatic
structures.
As an offshoot of the argument regarding spoken and written CS, the computermediated 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
35
resources, the study utilized written CS with an informal prompt that mimicked the tone
used in e-mails.
In summary, recent state of research has found that code-switching and
grammatical proficiency both concern bilingualism and the use of grammar, specifically
syntax.
Bilingualism is a natural occurrence in communities exposed to two languages
like the Philippines, eventually forming the colloquial CS language Taglish. It was
established, through neurological analyses, that age 6 was the determinant of the type of
bilingual one can be. Those who acquire their L2 before age 6 would be classified as
Early Bilinguals while those who acquire their L2 after age 6 become Late Bilinguals.
This division between the bilingual community is evident in private and public schools
where factors such as socio-economic status, teacher-related factors, inadequate learning
materials and the short and congested school curriculum confirms the language gap
between the two groups.
Grammatical proficiency, though seldom directly tested, is the underlying
component of language processing that determines the learners ability to correctly relay
information. Research indicates that syntactic elements not only vary in lexical density
but also in the frequency of use. Several studies have also shown that there is a close link
between grammatical proficiency and syntactic sensitivity, as proven by neurological
analysis. Based from this, it was found that the two language structures learned by the
bilingual should be considered since they function in parallel. However, since mastery of
36
L1 follows with the mastery of L2, grammatical proficiency tests would be better directed
toward the L2.
On the other hand, studies on CS seek to explain the system behind the two
language structures and how they are mixed together. Here, the base languagethe main
language system influencing the CS formationis the basis for analysing any CS
occurrence. That being said, both L1 and L2 can alternately stand as the base language
during CS, especially when both languages are deeply integrated and widely-used in a
community such as that of Philippines. However, for most part of the Philippines, CS has
been dismissed as a result of linguistic deficiency but recent studies have proved
otherwise. Its links to grammar have been established in general such that CS occurrences
can now be classified according to its patterns. Heavily relying on syntactic patterns,
Intrasentential CS is the most unexplored type. Its subtypes include Smooth CS, Flagging
(either functional or deficiency-driven), Constituent Insertion and Nonce Borrowing.
While most researches have established CS and its links to grammar, none have sought to
find specific connections between grammatical proficiency and the types of
Intrasentential CS.
37
Theoretical Framework
Equivalence Constraint theory.
Several researchers have already attributed the system of CS to the grammatical
structure of both languages. The most prominent among them is the Equivalence
constraint by Poplack (1980). The term equivalence is derived from the premise that
switches occur the particular part of the sentence where a similarity between two
languages can be found, which provides a gateway for the change in the grammatical
structure without affecting the meaning relayed by adjacent constituents.
In the course of Poplacks research, the equivalence constraint was given more
emphasis as she listed that types that adhered to it. Among the Intrasentential CS types,
only Smooth CS, Constituent Insertion and Nonce Borrowing were in accordance with
the mentioned theory whereas Flagged CS deviated from this constraint. Poplack (1993)
stated, Code-switching [Smooth CS], Constituent Insertion and Nonce Borrowing are all
(potentially) ways of alternating two languages smoothly within the sentence and in this,
all contrast with Flagged switching (p.281)
Aside from analyzing the different patterns of code-switching, Poplack compared
the participants linguistic fluency to the major code-switching types found in the study.
The finding for this part of the research implies that fluent bilinguals tend to use
Intrasentential code-switching while non-fluent bilinguals opted to code-switch more
intersententially. Poplack, however, did not administer a test that would specifically
measure grammatical proficiency. Rather, participants were selected based on their age of
arrival in the United States as well as their dominant language of use.
38
Types of Intrasentential Code-Switching in Taglish.

In their article in Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of
Language and Society, Poplack and Sankoff (as cited by Bautista, 1998) categorized the
types of Intrasentential code-switching into four: Smooth CS, Flagged CS, Nonce
Borrowing and Constituent Insertion.
From the term itself, Smooth CS refers to the kind of switching that adheres to the
grammatical structure of both languages such that its occurence seems natural and
smooth. In contrast, Flagged CS draws attention to the switch sites, often occurring in the
form of repetition, metalinguistic commentary, etc. Since the switch becomes noticeable
and unnatural during Flagging, it is believed to be the result of either deficiency or
proficiency (done to add an artistic effect). These two types of Flagging are termed
Deficiency-driven Flagging and Functional Flagging, respectively. For the purposes of
this study, the mentioned types of Flagging were taken as separate Intrasentential CS
types. The third type of CS is Constituent Insertion whereby a grammatical constituent
(tag expressions, enclictics and adverbials) from one language is inserted into the other
language, yet its position within the sentence depends on the grammar of its origin.
Lastly, Nonce Borrowing involves the insertion of a single foreign word that is not
widespread in the other language.
Bautista (1998) adapted the four Intrasentential types of CS into Taglish. In this
study, the Taglish patterns were grouped according to each type and were given brief
explanations. Though most of the equivalence constraints were applicable to the mixing
of Tagalog and English, Bautista found out that Taglish is capable of creating other
39
patterns that contradict with the previous theory. For Smooth CS, the following revisions
were proposed by Bautista:
1. For a Taglish VSO/SVO pair, switches can occur between Subject and Verb
(or vice-versa).
2. Switching can occur between a Tagalog verb and an English subject.
3. The Object cannot be a switch point in Tagalog-English CS because of their
determiners.
4. English words can be syntactically and morphologically integrated into
Tagalog.
Lastly, in relation to the identification of nonce or lexical borrowing, Bautista
(1998) proposed that the word order be examined. She states that the base language will
always be the language from which the word order is based and it is from this that we
determine the Nonce Borrowings or the lexical borrowings.
This research made use of the mentioned theories in order to ascertain the
relationship between grammatical proficiency and code-switching. The concept of CS
being proficiency or deficiency-driven will guide this research into assigning proficiency
levels for each type of Intrasentential CS. Aside from this, the new Taglish patterns
provided by Bautista in her paper Another Look at Tagalog-English Code-Switching
(1998) will serve as a basis in categorizing the participants use of CS.
40
Conceptual Framework
Early Bilinguals
Late Bilinguals
(Private High School Students)
(Public High School Students)
Grammatical
Proficiency Test
SECOND LANGUAGE
GRAMMATICAL
PROFICIENCY
(English)
High Proficiency
Low Proficiency
Essay
Writing Test
BASE LANGUAGE
L1 (Tagalog)
L2 (English)
Both (L1 & L2)
INTRASENTENTIAL
CODE-SWITCHING MODES
Proficiency-driven
-Smooth CS
-Functional Flagging
-Constituent Insertions
-Nonce Borrowing
Deficiency-driven
-Deficiency-driven Flagging
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
41
their proficiency levels. The same groups were also given an essay writing test from
which the CS occurrences were obtained. Each occurrence was then grouped according to
the base language used. This step was crucial in determining the mode of CS that each
occurrence fell under. The results of the two tests were then compared to each other by
first clustering the participants from each bilingual group according to their proficiency
level then analyzing the frequency of each of their CS modes. The results from the
grammatical proficiency test and the Intrasentential CS analysis of the essays then
became the basis for correlating second language grammatical proficiency and
Intrasentential CS as well as for comparing the early and late bilingual groups.
Statement of the Problem

The study intended to establish the connection between the grammatical
proficiency and the Intrasentential Code-Switching of selected Early and Late Bilinguals.
Specifically, it answered the following questions:
1. What is the English grammatical proficiency of the respondents?
2. What is the frequency of the Intrasentential code-switching modes used by the
respondents?
a. Proficiency-driven Intrasentential CS
- Smooth CS
- Functional Flagging
- Constituent Insertions
- Nonce Borrowing
42
b. Deficiency-driven Intrasentential CS
- Deficiency-driven Flagging
3. Is there a significant relationship between English grammatical proficiency
and Intrasentential code-switching?
4. Is there a significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
participants with high and low grammatical proficiencies?
5. Is there a significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
Early and Late Bilinguals?
Hypothesis
The study set forth the null hypotheses which were tested at 0.05 level of
significance:
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between grammatical proficiency and
Intrasentential code-switching of Early and Late Bilinguals.
Ha1: There is a significant relationship between grammatical proficiency and
Intrasentential code-switching of Early and Late Bilinguals.
Ho2: There is no significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
participants with high and low grammatical proficiencies
Ha2: There is a significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
participants with high and low grammatical proficiencies
Ho3: There is no significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between
Early and Late Bilinguals.
43
Ha3: There is a significant difference in the Intrasentential code-switching between Early

and Late Bilinguals.
Scope and Limitations

This correlational study aimed to determine the relationship between grammatical
proficiency and Intrasentential code-switching of selected bilinguals who have been
purely exposed to either the private or the public school system since the beginning of
their education. Hence, the variables were bilingualism, grammatical proficiency and
Intrasentential code-switching. While grammar was focused on the respondents second
language (English), the code-switching occurrences were counted according to the
existing Taglish patterns. To test grammatical proficiency, the research made use of the
Maastricht University Language Centre, English Department English Diagnostic Test
(Version 2, Standard). On the other hand, the frequency count of the Intrasentential codeswitches 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
44
in Tagalog was also excluded from this study since, being the first language, it is
assumed to have been already mastered by the participants. It is therefore more likely that
code-switches can only be caused by proficiency or deficiency in English. Lastly, the
grammatical accuracy or correctness of the utterances during CS was not covered by this
present study given that its concern lies solely on the switch sites, which are essential in
identifying the Intrasentential CS type being used.
Significance of the Study

This research focused on the relationship between the code-switching phenomena
and grammatical proficiency in order to ascertain its contribution to language evaluation
inside the bilingual classroom.
School administrators.
The acceptance of CS as an evidence of learning will yield to a more inclusive
bilingual education program and will involve the participation of more students. Because
of this, school administrators will be given a more holistic observation of the English
language classroom, unlike in a school with an English-only policy where the bulk of the
language production only comes from a few fluent English speakers. In the same sense,
class observations will also yield to more accurate teacher evaluations.
Teachers of English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL).
By investigating the levels of proficiency exhibited in each type of Intrasentential
CS, instances of code-switching can now be used as a type of formative assessment
instead of being dismissed as an indicator of deficiency. In addition, future language
45
programs can be created where students will be taught to master the concepts of grammar
using CS or make an intervention program that would facilitate the separate mastery of
L1 and L2 by pinpointing the recurring CS sites and types of the bilinguals.
Students.
Aside from educators, students who are drawn back by lack of English words can
still be perceived as grammatically competent. If the findings of this research will be
incorporated in the classroom, more students will be able to recite and practice their
mastery in grammar while they are still familiarizing themselves with the English
vocabulary. They will also be able to focus on higher-level learning tasks since the
barrier of L2 deficiency is out of the way.
46
Definition of Terms
Base language.
Accoding to Boztepe (2005) Base Language is the main language in a codeswitched 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.
47
Constituent Insertion.
The act of inserting a grammatical constituent from one language into a syntactic
slot made for the other language (Poplack, 2004).
In this study, Constituent Insertions are defined in the same way, specifically in
reference to adverbials, tag-expressions and non-content words.
Constraint.
Constraint is a term that refers to limitation or restriction (Retrived from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constraint?s=t).
In the operational sense, a constraint is a general syntactic rule in code-switching
made up by the similarities between two languages.
Early Bilingual
Early Bilinguals are people who acquired a second language before age 6
(Genesee, et al. as cited by Fava & Hull, 2010).
Operationally, Early Bilinguals are described to have acquired their second
language at the same age range (from 0-6 years old), usually even before they entered
school through extensive use at home or through their exposure to media. The researcher
also ruled out the possibility of attrition in the Early Bilinguals who will participate in the
study.
First Language (L1).
In linguistics, first language is the native language acquired by an individual
(Retrieved from http://thesaurus.com/browse/first+language?s=t).
48
For this study, the first language of the participants is Tagalog or more officially
known as Filipino and the abbreviation L1 was used to refer to it.
Flagged code-switching.
The constraint where switches draw attention to the switch sites through
repetition, metalinguistic commentary and other ways that, in contrast with Smooth CS,
make the switch noticeable (Poplack, 2004).
Operationally, Flagged code-switching was used as a general term to cite its two
types: Functional Flagging or Deficiency-driven Flagging. The first type is used as a form
of artistic expression while the latter is a result of grammatical deficiencies.
Grammar.
According to Kroeger (2005), grammar is the set of rules for all structural
properties of a language, which intends to describe its sentence patterns.
The researcher used the term to refer to the language structure that two languages
adhere to. Grammar as used in this study gives more emphasis on the rules rather than the
specific elements that comprise it.
Grammatical proficiency.
Grammatical proficiency is the ability to utilize all structural properties of a
language except sound structure. It intends to describe the word and sentence patterns of
a language by formulating a set of rules (Kroeger, 2005). In addition, grammatical
proficiency is the explicit awareness of how language works. Moreover, the term
proficiency is preferred over competence since the latter is always performed (Shanklin,
1994).
49
In the same sense, grammatical proficiency in this study was taken as an

individual variable that is measurable through a test and can be hypothetically performed
using code-switching. Furthermore, it is the ability of a bilingual to utilize structural
properties of a language excluding phonology and morphology.
Intrasentential Code-Switching.
This is the process of switching between two languages in one sentence (Bista,
2010). It takes place within the clause boundary and only occurs through the shift of
phrases or individual words (Hamers & Blanc as cited by Dulm, 2007).
Operationally, Intrasentential code-switching is defined the same way.
Late bilingual.
Late Bilinguals are people who acquired a second language after age 6 (Genesee,
et al. as cited by Fava & Hull, 2010).
Operationally, Late Bilinguals are described to have acquired their second
language at the same age of six, usually from the time they entered school where English
is only explicitly taught in the higher grade levels.
Nonce Borrowing.
Nonce Borrowing is the process that basically uses a word from the L2 which is
already embedded in ones vocabulary because of frequency of use, familiarity and
phonological integration (Poplack as cited by Borlongan, 2009b). These words, also
called loan-other words, are not recurrent nor are they widespread in a community.
Nonce Borrowing as used in this study is simply the usage of jargons, technical
terms, idioms and highly cultural words from either the L1 or the L2.
50
Patterns.
A combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming aconsistent or character
istic arrangement (Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pattern?s=t).
For this study, patterns are pre-defined code-switching tendencies according to
structure, which are presented in sentence form. In Linguistics, these are also called
syntactic templates.
Private school.
A private school is an educational institution maintained and administered by
private individuals or groups (Philippine National Statistical Coordination Board, n.d.).
Operationally, the private school was used to refer to the Early Bilinguals where
the participants will be coming from.
Public school.
Also called government schools, these are established, operated and supported by
the government (Philippine National Statistical Coordination Board, n.d.).
In this study, the public school was used to refer to the Late Bilinguals where the
participants will be coming from.
Second Language (L2).
Once the mother tongue or first language acquisition is established, a second
language can be acquired by an individual and is therefore the additional language
(Singhal, 2011).
Operationally, the second language of the participants is English and the
abbreviation L2 is used to refer to it.
51
Smooth code-switching.
The equivalence constraint says that, in code-switching, both languages must
switch at the same part of the sentence (or switch site) which preserves the grammatical
construction of the constituents adjacent to the switch site (Poplack, 1980).
The researcher adapted of the same definition in this study.
Syntactic Categories.
Also called parts of speech, these determine a words interpretation and the
meaning of the phrase or sentence in which it occurs. Words and phrases fall under
syntactic categories (Kroeger, 2005).
The same definition was used for this research. The syntactic categories that will
be used for this study are Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunction
and Determiners/ Articles. However, when referring to syntactic categories, interjections
were not included.
Syntax.
Syntax is the grammatical structure of groups, clauses and sentences (Baker,
2011), which include (1) word order, (2) constituent/phrase structure, (3) sentence types,
(4) special constructions, (5) modifiers and intensifiers, (6) coordination and correlation
(7) subordination (8) embedding (Center for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2002).
In operational terms, syntax refers to the way words are arranged in the sentence.
In general, it is composed of two thingsword order and the individual syntactic
categories.
52
Taglish.
Taglish is the colloquial term for code-switching between Filipino and English.
Because the Filipino language is composed of hundreds of dialects, Tagalog was
appointed as the official language of the Philippines. To make the term more inclusive,
Tagalog is often referred to as Filipino (Durano, 2009).
Operationally, Taglish refers to the code-switching language used by majority of
Filipinos in the Luzon area.
Utterance.
An utterance is referred to as something spoken, which may be a word or a group
of words (Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utterance?s=t).
Operationally, this is used in couple with code-switching to cite a single sentence
that makes use of two languages. When in plural, it refers to the sentences formed
through the process of code-switching.
53
Chapter II
Method
This chapter discusses the research design, participants and sampling technique, data
gathering procedure, and method of data analysis that will be used in this study.
Research Design
The three variablesbilingualism, second language (L2) grammatical proficiency
and Intrasentential Code-Switching (CS) were investigated upon through the
quantitative research design. Specifically, the researcher employed the Comparative
Correlational Design, which seeks to determine the relationship between the mentioned
variables (Johnson & Reynolds, 2013). In this design, the L2 grammatical proficiency
and Intrasentential CS were obtained from the two bilingual groups: the early bilingual
group from the private school and the late bilingual group coming from the public school.
Therefore, the correlation occurred at two levels: one between the L2 grammatical
proficiency and Intrasentential CS, and another between the Early and Late Bilinguals.
Participants and Sampling Technique

The participants for the early bilingual group came from Trinity University of
Asia, which is a co-educational Private Catholic school that has been PAASCU
accredited. It is located at 275 E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Quezon City and has an
estimated population of 100 fourth year students. On the other hand, the public school or
late bilingual group came from Pugad Lawin High School (PLHS) which is one of the 48
54
secondary public schools in Quezon City, Philippines. PLHS is located along Seminary
Road, Brgy. Bahay Toro, Proj. 8, Quezon City and has an estimated population of 250
fourth year students.
In order to specifically distinguish the relationship between the two levels of
grammatical proficiencies (high and low) and the two bilingual groups, the participants
were divided into four clusters based on their grammatical proficiency scores and
bilingual type: (1) Early Bilinguals with High Proficiency, (2) Early Bilinguals with Low
Proficiency, (3) Late Bilinguals with High Proficiency and (4) Late Bilinguals with Low
Proficiency.
According to Watson (2001), there is no permanent percentage assigned to each
population. However, the sampling size is determined by the goal, desired precision,
confidence level, degree of variability and estimated response rate. For this study, equal
number of participants (30 for each bilingual group) were obtained, which resulted into
different sample sizes (30% for the Early Bilingual group and 12% for the Late Bilingual
group). This variance in sample size was due to the current difference in Private and
Public school enrolment rate. While Pugad Lawin High School already had the lowest
population in all Public Schools in the same area, it remained to have a greater population
than the private school group. According to The National Statistics Office (2012), this
unequal distribution of students between private and public schools is normal in the
Philippine setting (with public school population composing 80% of the secondary level)
and as a result, there cannot be an equal sample size between private and public schools.
55
Since this research design requires the same number of participants from both bilingual
groups, the sample size percentage would have to be unequal.
Because of this unequal percentage, the Quota Sampling method was used to
gather the students who came from both groups. The purpose of the quota was to gather
30 participants from each bilingual group whereby 15 of them have high grammatical
proficiency while the other 15 have low proficiency. The other requirement was for these
participants to have used code-switching in their essays.
Though the schools did not allow the tests to be administered to all their fourth
year students, the said requirements were achieved. This is because the study mainly
dwells on the relationship between grammatical proficiency and CS. For this reason, the
participants only needed to come from two bilingual groups, two separate proficiency
clusters and be able to produce CS. Secondly, the participants came from a heterogeneous
class, which produced varied grammatical proficiency levels. Because of this, the
requirement of N=15 for each of the 4 clusters was obtained. Lastly, Normality Tests for
the grammatical proficiency scores of the high and low proficiency groups show that the
distribution is plotted normally.
Research Instruments
The researcher obtained the participants' L2 grammatical proficiency through the
Maastricht University Language Centre, English Department English Diagnostic Test
(Version 2, Standard) (2002). Alongside this, a researcher-made writing prompt was also
used to get the needed CS occurrences.
56
The Maastricht University Language Centre, English Department English

Diagnostic Test (Version 2, Standard) consists of 99 questions that tests syntax and its
specific categories: verbs, articles, pronouns, prepositions, adjectives and adverbs. It is a
multiple choice test where each stem question is in a maze-item format. In contrast with
the traditional format of maze tests, the said English Diagnostic Test contains four
responses that target specific grammar points and requires the participants to answer
quickly without extensively considering their answers. Originally used in Netherlands,
the test was taken by fourth year high school students who were about to enter Maastricht
University for the tertiary level. The same test was administered to fourth year Philippine
private school students in Andrade and Saguns (2010) study. Below are the proficiency
levels assigned to its test scores. For this study, 20-59 was considered to be under low
proficiency while 60-99 was considered to be high proficiency:
0-20= Elementary
20-50= Lower Intermediate
50-60= Intermediate
60-80= Upper Intermediate
80-99= Advanced
57
Table 1 indicates the list of item numbers and the specific grammar points they
target.
Table 1
Test Items for Each Grammar Point
Grammar Point
Question
Question
Question
Articles
16
31
Short Questions
17
32
Present Simple
18
33
WH Questions
19
34
Future 1
20
35
Past Simple 1
21
36
Present Progressive
22
37
Some/ Any
23
38
Present Perfect
24
39
Imperative
10
25
40
Comparatives
11
26
41
Short Answers
12
27
42
Have Got
13
28
43
Question
Note. Adapted from English Diagnostic Test (Version 2, Standard) by Maastricht

University Language Centre, 2002.
58
Table 1. Test Items for Each Grammar Point (continued)

Grammar Point
Question
Question
Question
Question
Pronouns 1
14
29
44
Prepositions 1
15
30
45
Modals for Politeness
46
63
80
96
Past Simple 2
47
64
81
97
Modals General
48
65
82
98
Adjective/ Adverb
49
66
83
99
Conditionals
50
67
84
Future 2
51
68
85
Prepositions 2
52
69
86
Passive
53
70
87
Reported Speech
54
71
88
Past Perfect
55
72
89
For / Since
56
73
90
Relative Clauses
57
74
91
Pronouns 2
58
75
92
-inf/ -ing
59
76
93
Pronouns 3
60
77
94
Past Progressive
61
78
95
Note. Adapted from English Diagnostic Test (Version 2, Standard) by Maastricht

University Language Centre, 2002.
59
The researcher obtained the CS occurences through a researcher-made writing

prompt that was composed of two parts: (1) A technical topic entiled Tried and Tested
Techniques para sa Paghahanda sa Exam and (2) a personal topic entitled Ano ang
Dream Mo for Yourself?
The first category was chosen based on the premise that CS is used to compensate
for the inability to explain using a single language, making the CS deficiency-driven. The
second is based on Sebbas (2005) study, which concludes that an authentic prompt with
a conversational tone will more likely prompt CS use. Personal topics, being mostly
used in friendly conversations, were deemed to have the same effect in written form.
According to Cardenas-Claros and Isharyanti (2009), researcher-triggered CS
(whereby the researcher initiates CS) results to a reciprocal response from the participants
by 78%. This is the basis for the use of CS in the directions and all the other parts of the
instrument which are in Taglish.
All directions and topics were validated by Professor Robert Ortaez, Professor
Ma. Cristina Singian and Professor Oliver Ofracio.
In analyzing the CS occurrences, Guidelines for Intrasentential CS Analysis were
prepared based on existing Taglish CS patterns (Bautista, 1998) as well as the recurring
CS forms in the present data. Each clause with CS was categorized according to their
base language (English, Tagalog or Both). From here, the Intrasentential CS Occurrences
were highlighted from the essays and tallied according to the following modes of CS: (1)
Proficiency-driven CS (Smooth CS, Functional Flagging, Constituent Insertion, Nonce
Borrowing) and (2) Deficiency-driven CS (Deficiency-driven Flagging). The CS analyses
60
were then counter-checked by Ms. Shalom Evangeliz Javalera (Bachelor of Science in

Secondary Education, Major in English).
Data Gathering Procedure

Through a formal letter, the researcher obtained consent from the Divison of City
Schools of Quezon City. After securing permission from the Division Superintendent, the
researcher sent the formal letters to Pugad Lawin High School (PLHS), addressed to the
principal. For The Basic Education Division of Trinity University of Asia, the researcher
sought the permission of the Principal through a formal letter. Both the Grammatical
Proficiency Test and the Essay writing activity were administered to PLHS on July 29,
2013 and to Trinity University of Asia on August 27, 2013. The participants took both
instruments within one hour (15 minutes for each of the 2 essay topics and 30 minutes for
the grammatical proficiency test).
After the test administration, the grammatical proficiency scores for each
bilingual group were arranged from lowest to highest. The students with the top 15 and
the bottom 15 scores (who used CS in their essays) were taken as the participants of this
study while those who attained the middle scores were disregarded. Early Bilinguals with
the top 15 scores were considered to be the Early Bilinguals with High Proficiency
cluster while those with the lowest 15 were under the Early Bilinguals with Low
Proficiency cluster. The Late Bilinguals were also grouped in the same way resulting into
the 4 clusters mentioned in the Participants and Sampling Technique section.
61
Following this, the CS occurences of each cluster were analysed and categorized
into the modes of Intrasentental CS. A frequency count was made for each Intrasentential
CS mode. These were then compared to the grammatical proficiency scores. Finally,
results of each of the 4 clusters were compared to each other in order to find the specific
similarities and difference between High and Low proficiency clusters and the Early and
Late Bilingual clusters.
Method of Data Analysis

The study contains three independent variables: bilingualism, second language
grammatical proficiency and Intrasentential code-switching (which is divided into two
modes: Proficiency-driven CS and Deficiency-driven CS). Using the mean and standard
deviation, the study first sought to answer the average score of the respondents for each
grammatical proficiency level. On the other hand, frequency count and percentage were
used in summarizing each type and mode of Intrasentential CS. For inferential statistics,
Pearsons r test was used to find the relationship between grammatical proficiency and
CS while t test was used to find the difference between the High and Low proficiency
clusters and the Early and Late Bilingual clusters.
62
Chapter III
Results and Discussion
This section presents and explains the statistical evidence that determines the
relationship between grammatical proficiency and code-switching (CS) among Early and
Late Bilinguals. These bilinguals were divided into four clusters which eventually
produced different CS types. Under Proficiency-driven CS, Smooth CS, Functional
Flagging, Constituent Insertion and Nonce Borrowing were observed. On the other hand,
Deficiency-driven Flagging is the only type under Deficiency-driven CS and was present
in all clusters. Prior to categorizing the Intrasentential CS occurences, the base language
(English, Tagalog or Both English and Tagalog) for each clause were determined in order
to ascertain the type of CS. The results from the grammatical proficiency test and the
Intrasentential CS analysis were the basis for comparing the Early and Late Bilingual
groups.
63
Results
Table 2
Grammatical Proficiency Scores of Early and Late Bilinguals
Early Bilinguals
Late Bilinguals
Cluster
SD
Proficiency Level
High Proficiency
81.07
4.48
Advanced
Low Proficiency
51.80
6.49
Intermediate
High Proficiency
68.20
5.46
Upper Intermediate
Low Proficiency
46.73
3.54
Lower Intermediate
Note. 0 to 20 Elementary, 20 to 50 Lower Intermediate, 50 to 60 Intermediate, 60 to 80

Upper Intermediate, 80 to 99 Advanced.
Table 2 shows the mean Grammatical Proficiency scores of each group. It is

evident from these results that the Early Bilingual group obtained higher scores than the
Late Bilingual group with a difference of 12.87 mean points between the two High
Proficiency groups and 5.07 for the two Low Proficiency groups. On average, the scores
of the participants from the Early Bilingual Low Proficiency Group had the most
deviation from the mean while those of the Late Bilingual Low Proficiency Group had
the least. Of all the groups, no participant obtained a score that fell under the elementary
level of proficiency. For this reason, the four remaining levels of proficiency were split
into two. Lower Intermediate and intermediate were indicators of low proficiency while
upper intermediate and advanced were indicators of High Proficiency.
64
Table 3
Base Language of Early and Late Bilinguals
Early Bilinguals
Late Bilinguals
English
171
17.26
Tagalog
568
57.32
Both
252
25.43
Total
991
100.00
English
165
19.53
Tagalog
562
66.51
Both
118
13.96
Total
845
100.00
Note. Based on the tallied fre quency count of code-switched clauses produced by
participants. Base languages produced = Code-switched clauses produced
Table 3 presents the base languages used by Early and Late Bilinguals. As
presented, Tagalog was the base language with the highest occurrence from the two
bilingual groups. However, the groups differed in their second and third choices for base
language. The Early Bilingual group used Both Tagalog and English as their second base
language while English was the least used. For the Late Bilinguals, on the other hand,
English came second while Both Tagalog and English was last. In total, Early Bilinguals
produced more code-switched clauses than Late Bilinguals by a difference of 146
occurrences.
65
Table 4
Proficiency-Driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals within clusters
Cluster
Types
Early Bilinguals w/
High Proficiency
Smooth
204
36.89
Functional Flagging
.00
Constituent Insertion
29
5.24
Nonce Borrowing
320
57.87
Total
553
100.00
Smooth
153
41.92
Functional Flagging
1.10
14
3.84
Nonce Borrowing
194
53.15
Total
365
100.00
Smooth
134
32.76
Functional Flagging
.98
34
8.31
Nonce Borrowing
237
57.95
Total
409
100
Early Bilinguals w/
Low Proficiency
Late Bilinguals w/
High Proficiency
Rank
Note. Based on the tallied frequency count of each occurrence within and between
clauses, ranked 1 to 4 from most to least.
66
Table 4. Proficiency-Driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals within clusters

(continued)
Cluster
Late Bilinguals w/
Low Proficiency
Types
Rank
Smooth
138
47.92
Functional Flagging
.69
28
9.72
Nonce Borrowing
120
41.67
Total
288
100
Note. Based on the tallied frequency count of each occurrence within and between
The types of Proficiency-driven Intrasentential CS of Early and Late Bilinguals

can be examined in Table 4. As shown, the type of Proficiency-driven Intrasentential CS
most used by Early Bilinguals is Nonce Borrowing, followed by Smooth CS, Constituent
Insertion and lastly, Functional Flagging. This sequence stands regardless of
grammatical proficiency. Nonetheless, Early Bilinguals with High Proficiency produced
more CS occurrences for all the proficiency-driven CS types than the Early Bilinguals
with Low Proficiency, except for Functional Flagging.
While the Late Bilinguals with High Proficiency had the same rankings of
proficiency-driven types as the Early Bilinguals, Late Bilinguals with Low Proficiency
had Smooth CS as the type with the highest occurrence followed by Nonce Borrowing,
Constituent Insertion and Functional Flagging. However, Smooth CS and Nonce
67
Borrowing for Late Bilinguals with Low proficiencies only had a difference of 6.25%.
Late Bilinguals with High proficiency also produced more occurrences for all the
proficiency-driven CS types than Late Bilinguals with Low Proficiency, except for
Smooth CS.
Table 5
Proficiency-driven CS of Early and Late Bilinguals between clusters
Rank
Early Bilinguals with High Proficiency
553
34.24
Early Bilinguals with Low Proficiency
365
22.60
Late Bilinguals with High Proficiency
409
25.33
Late Bilinguals with Low Proficiency
288
17.83
Total
1615
100
Note. Based on the tallied fre quency count of each occurrence within and between
Table 5 shows the frequency and percentages of proficiency-driven CS produced

by the 4 clusters. As shown, that high-proficiency clusters produced more proficiencydriven CS than the low-proficiency clusters. Table 5 further shows that Early Bilinguals
produced more proficiency-driven CS than Late Bilinguals regardless of proficiency
level. This result is in line with that of Table 2 where the Early Bilingual high and low
clusters produced higher grammatical proficiency scores than the Late Bilingual clusters.
68
Table 6
Deficiency-Driven CS of Early and Late Bilinguals between clusters
Rank
Early Bilinguals with High Proficiency
52
13.51
Early Bilinguals with Low Proficiency
127
32.99
Late Bilinguals with High Proficiency
84
21.82
Late Bilinguals with Low Proficiency
122
31.69
Total
385
100
Note. Based on the tallied fre quency count of each occurrence within and between
Presented in Table 6 are the frequency and percentages of deficiency-driven CS

produced by the 4 clusters. As shown, that low-proficiency clusters produced more
deficiency-driven CS than the high-proficiency clusters. Additionally, Early Bilinguals
with high and low proficiencies produced the least and the most number of deficiencydriven CS, respectively. This illustrates that the difference between the high and low
proficiency clusters is greater within the Early Bilingual group than the Late Bilingual
group.
69
Table 7
Significant Relationship between Grammatical Proficiency and Intrasentential CS modes
of Early and Late Bilinguals
Variables
1. Grammatical Proficiency
--
.49**
-.48**
2. Proficiency-driven Intrasentential
Code-Switching
.49**
--
-.09
3. Deficiency-driven Intrasentential
Code-Switching
-.48**
-.09
--
Note. **All correlation coefficients are significant at p < .01, *p < .05.
Table 7 presents the test of significant relationship between Grammatical Proficiency,

Proficiency-driven CS and Deficiency-driven CS of both bilingual groups. The
probability value obtained for Grammatical Proficiency and Proficiency-driven CS is
equal to .00 with a direct correlation. On the other hand, Grammatical Proficiency and
Deficiency-driven CS is also equal to .00 with an inverse correlation. Since the p value is
less than .05, the first null hypothesis is rejected. On the other hand, the p value of .48
obtained between the Proficiency-driven CS and Deficiency-driven CS implies that there
is no significant relationship between them since the two are extremes of one
measurement and do not overlap. Both are taken as one measurement since, as their
labels imply, proficiency-driven CS indicates proficiency while deficiency-driven CS
indicates deficiency, unlike grammatical proficiency which can test both ways.
70
Table 8
Significant difference of CS between High and Low Grammatical Proficiency Groups
df
Cohens d
Proficiency-driven Code-Switching
58
3.49
.00
.90
Deficiency-driven Code-Switching
58
-3.59
.00
.93
Note. First group is High Proficiency Bilinguals, second group is Low Proficiency
Bilinguals, total N=60.
Table 8 shows a general idea of the difference between the High and Low
proficiency groups. It is evident that there is a significant difference in the Proficiencydriven CS and Deficiency-driven CS between high and low grammatical proficiency
groups. This is based on the probability value obtained which is less than the level of
significance of .05. Because of this, the second null hypothesis is rejected. In addition,
the positive correlation between the groups Proficiency-driven CS indicate a direct
relationship, while the negative correlation for Deficiency-driven CS indicate an inverse
relationship.
Table 9
Significant difference of CS between Early and Late Bilinguals
df
Cohens d
58
2.38
.02
.61
Deficiency-driven Code-Switching
58
-.78
.44
.20
Note. First group is Early Bilinguals, second group is Late Bilinguals, total N=60.
71
Presented in Table 9 is the significant difference in the Proficiency- driven CS and

Deficiency-driven CS between the Bilingual groups being compared. This table gives a
general comparison of the two bilingual groups. Since the probability value for
Proficiency-driven CS is less than .05, there is a significant difference between the Early
and Late Bilingual groups for this variable. However, the p value for deficiency-driven
CS is greater than .05 and therefore indicates that there is no significant difference
between the two groups for this variable. Because one of two variables had a significant
difference, the third null hypothesis is rejected. Furthermore, while there is a direct
correlation between the groups Proficiency-driven CS, they have an inverse correlation
for Deficiency-driven CS.
Discussion
Following the formal modes for Intrasentential code-switching as constructed by
Poplack and Sankoff (1988) and Bautista (1998), this research aimed to prove the link
between grammatical proficiency and Intrasentential CS modes as well as their difference
between Early and Late Bilinguals. The findings of the study illustrated that there is a
significant relationship between the variables: while Grammatical Proficiency and
Proficiency-driven CS have a direct correlation, Grammatical Profciency and Deficiencydriven CS have an inverse correlation. Moreover, results indicated that Early and Late
Bilinguals differ in their use of the two previously mentioned Intrasentential CS modes.
Using CS as a pedagogical tool in teaching grammatical proficiency was also discovered
to have specific parameters for the four clusters namely: Early Bilinguals with High
72
Proficiency, Early Bilinguals with Low Proficiency, Late Bilinguals with High
Proficiency and Late Bilinguals with Low Proficiency. The following paragraphs discuss
the findings and implications in detail.
The first most evident difference between the two bilingual groups was their
grammatical proficiency scores. As reported in Table 2, Early Bilinguals were a level
higher than the Late Bilinguals in terms of their mean scores. The early bilingual groups
mean score attained the advanced level for its high-proficiency cluster, and the
intermediate level for its low-proficiency cluster. On the other hand, the late bilingual
group only attained upper intermediate for its high-proficiency cluster and lower
Intermediate for its low-proficiency cluster.
The difference in the grammatical proficiency scores of Early Bilinguals and Late
Bilinguals, as mentioned in the previous chapters, is a result of the Language Acquisition
phenomenon whereby the age of 6 determines the ability to acquire a second language
(L2). According to Hull and Vaid (2007), Early Bilinguals acquire L2 before age 6 while
Late Bilinguals acquire L2 after the mentioned age. The dissimilarity between the highest
and lowest proficiency levels of both bilingual groups in this research also supports a
case study by Tomiyama (2008) which shows how the grammatical test scores of two
siblings were considerably at variance because of their age of L2 acquisition. The
findings of this study imply that Early Bilinguals will be more grammatically proficient
than Late Bilinguals even as they reach adulthood (in this case, 4th year high school or
grade 10). This difference in their linguistic progress would give the Early Bilinguals a
greater chance of attaining mastery of their L2 than the Late Bilinguals who had lower
73
scores. Furthermore, since grammar is the underlying component of linguistic

proficiency, it is inferred that Early Bilinguals will also attain higher scores in language
proficiency tests that involves all macro-skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) such
as Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and International English Language
Testing System (IELTS). While age of language acquisition sets Early Bilinguals at an
advantage, other factors also caused the disparity between the grammatical scores of the
two bilingual groups.
According to the UNESCO-IBE 2006 report, the curriculum offered by private
schools in the Philippines creates L2 exposure at an early age while public schools,
because of the difference in demographic factors, fail to do so. This gap eventually
affects the grammatical proficiency of both groups in the long run. The variance found
between the proficiency levels of Early and Late Bilinguals is also constant with
Keiffers (2008) research that illustrates how students from a high-poverty school (often
from the public sector) took more time to catch-up than a low-poverty school (from the
private sector). Furthermore, most private schools also require students to be in class for
up to eight hours a day while the education in public schools is limited to 6 hours a day
due to two shifts (morning and afternoon classes) in order to accommodate the growing
population of public school enrolees. With the bulk of the student population being in
public schools, more resources are needed and less time is allotted to take up lessons. It is
therefore evident that the ability of the public school sector to teach language is less than
that of the private school. This may be due to their limited curriculum, availability or
resources or the time allocated in teaching the L2 subject. Therefore, the disparity
74
between the public and private school scores cannot be addressed only by acquiring L2 at
an early stage but also by ensuring that both offer the same conditions. It is further
inferred that once the same quality is given to private and public school learners, the
effect of age of L2 acquisition may lessen. As a result, the Early and Late Bilinguals
would have the same grammatical proficiency level.
In Table 3, the base language used by Early and Late Bilinguals was presented. It
is shown that all the base languages occurred during the CS of both bilingual groups. This
supports Poplack and Sankoff (as cited by Adamou, 2010) who stated that typologically
similar languages would produce Alternational CS, whereby two languages converge
during one discourse. It can then be confirmed that Tagalog and English are typologically
similar since both bilingual groups produced varying base languages, a direct evidence of
Alternational CS. The table also shows that the Tagalog base language dominated the
occurrences made by the respondents. Andrews and Rusher (2010), explains that this
typically happens in CS since a bilinguals ability often favors one language over the
other. In the case of the participants of this study, their first language (L1) was their most
preferred base language. This preference for the L1 can be traced back to the study of
Macizo, Bajo and Paolieri (2012), which stated that bilinguals find greater ease in CS
when switching from L1 to L2.
The dominance of Tagalog as base language points out that Filipino bilinguals are
more proficient in their L1 (Tagalog) than in their L2 (English). The reason for this is
also the widespread use of Tagalog in the community, which supplements the concepts
taught in the L1 language program (also called the Filipino subject). This implies that
75
though the curriculum required more time for the L2 (500 minutes per week for the
English subject and 400 minutes per week for the Filipino subject starting grade 1),
bilinguals were still more proficient in their L1 because they use it outside the school. If
L2 was also supplemented in the same waywith more application than concepts it
may be more preferred as the base language. Therefore, bilinguals who lean toward one
base language (e.g. Tagalog) may be using that language as a dominant medium of
communication.
It is evident from the results that Tagalog was the most preferred base language
by both bilingual groups. Nonetheless, the two bilingual groups differed in their second
and third preferences. For Early Bilinguals, Both Tagalog and English was the next base
language with the most occurrences while English had the least. On the other hand, Late
Bilinguals preferred the opposite. In a past study correlating Bilinguals preference for
sentence structure and their grammatical proficiency, it was found that less proficient
participants stuck with the subject-verb order (the common structure for English), while
more proficient ones exhibited use of both inversions (Hertel, 2003). It can therefore be
concluded that Early Bilinguals preferred Both Tagalog and English over English for
their base language because they have the ability to abide by syntactic structures that
adhere to both L1 and L2. However, Borlongans (2009) findings indicate that Filipino
respondents comprehended more using English rather than Tagalog. This contradiction
with the present studys report implies that Bilinguals can differ in their preference for
language production and language perception.
76
Table 4 presents the types of Proficiency-driven Intrasentential CS produced by

the four clusters. Occurrence of Nonce Borrowing (that is, using single-word insertion)
was found to be the highest for Early Bilinguals with High Proficiency, Early Bilinguals
with Low Proficiency and Late Bilinguals with High Proficiency. This dominance of
Nonce Borrowing in the table maintains the conclusion by another study which
established the noun category as the prompter of the most CS (Thompson, 2003). CS is
prompted by the noun category because, as Sunderman and Kroll (2006) explain, learners
have difficulties in lexical items regardless of their proficiency; participants then resort to
CS in order to fill the gap in a one-language discourse using a word from another
language. However, this is in contrast with the findings of this study since highproficiency groups attained more Nonce Borrowings than the low-proficiency groups;
therefore implying that the knowledge of vocabulary items contributes to grammatical
proficiency. From here it can be concluded that bilinguals who have wide vocabulary
simply use Nonce Borrowing for ease and expression, not as a means to make up for their
lexical deficiency in one language. Nevertheless, the use of Nonce Borrowing by the lowproficiency learners can be considered as the coping strategy whereby they substitute an
unknown word from one language with a word from the other language. If this is the
case, then low-proficiency learners should be taught the equivalents of each word in L1
and L2 to reduce their use of Nonce Borrowing as a coping mechanism.
The application of this finding would be in the form of vertical integration where
it would be beneficial to link vocabulary items of the Filipino subject with those of the
English subject. The different kinds of recurring words found in this study also suggest
77
varied approaches to teaching vocabulary in a bilingual classroom. These types are: (1)
words with exact translations and (2) words without exact translations (3) culturallybound words. When it is common for a learner to code-switch by inserting a word from
L1 into the L2 (or vice versa) even though an exact translation is available (such as the
Nonce Borrowing pagrereview which has the more accurate Tagalog counterpart
pagbabalik-aral), only awareness of its equivalent is needed. In such case, the
proposed vertical integration can simply be applied. However, when a learner
continuously inserts words with no exact translation (such as He talked to me in
pasigaw which is translated into He talked to me like he was shouting), it may simply
be due to preference or for greater ease, as in the case of the high-proficiency clusters.
Lastly, culturally-bound words such as bibingka and barong should be identified as
words which cannot be translated, only described. With this knowledge, learners will no
longer need to look for its equivalent since there is none.
Aside from Nonce Borrowing, Smooth CS (which occurs at a switch site that
adheres to the grammar of both languages) was the type with the second most
occurrences for all clusters except for Late Bilinguals with Low Proficiency which placed
it at first (though the frequency between its Nonce Borrowing and Smooth CS merely
differed by 6.25%). Unlike Nonce Borrowing, the occurrence of Smooth CS heavily
relies on syntactic structure (i.e. parts of speech and subject-verb agreement) and
therefore requires the most grammatical proficiency (Van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010). Upon
comparing the four clusters, Early Bilinguals with High Proficiency had the most Smooth
CS occurrences followed by Early Bilinguals with Low Proficiency, then Late Bilinguals
78
with High Proficiency and finally, the Late Bilinguals with Low Proficiency. Evidently,
Early Bilinguals still attained more Smooth CS in comparison with the Late Bilinguals.
This leads to the conclusion that Early Bilinguals are more syntactically sensitive than
Late Bilinguals, who have also previously attained lower grammatical proficiency scores
in Table 2.
According to Hull and Vaids (2007) meta-analysis, Early Bilinguals will view
their L1 and L2 holistically and would tend to integrate both into one system, while Late
Bilinguals are more analytic and would know the definite line between the two
languages. However, the findings of this research suggest that Early Bilinguals are more
analytic than the Late Bilinguals and they know exactly at which points the grammar of
the two languages intersect. Because of this, Early Bilinguals would more easily grasp
the concept of Subject-verb agreement and Parts of Speech. Late Bilinguals, on the other
hand, need more practice on the said.
The recurring Smooth CS switch sites found in the data were in the form
prepositions and conjunctions, which are the main connectors in a sentence. This implies
that the two parts of speech are indispensable in grammar and the mastery of both would
result to greater proficiency. It would therefore be favourable to highlight the use of
prepositions and conjunctions in grammar lessons.
It is also illustrated in Table 4 that the third proficiency-driven CS type with the
most occurrences was Constituent Insertion (insertion of an adverbial or a tag expressions
such as Daw, Na, Oh no or non-content words ). Its rank is constant for the four
clusters. Again, the bilinguals with high-proficiency attained more Constituent Insertions
79
than those with low-proficiency. Based on its frequency, the occurrences for this CS type
were greater in the Late Bilingual group while its frequency across the high and low
proficiency clusters did not show any consistence. It is explained by a previous study that
the probable reason for this is that Constituent Insertions are highly dependent on social
influence rather than language typology (Poplack as cited by Treffers-Daller, 2005).
Therefore, though the occurrence of this type requires high grammatical proficiency,
social influence causes participants to produce a set of Constituent Insertions unique to a
particular community. Because this type was greater in the Late Bilingual Group than the
Early Bilingual group, it is implied that more Constituent Insertions have been shared
within the public school setting than in the private school setting.
Finally, the proficiency-driven type with the least occurrences is Functional
Flagging (switches draw attention to the switch sites through breaking the equivalence
constraint for artistic expression of language). According to the results, the Lowproficiency clusters produced more of this type than the High-proficiency clusters.
Among all of the proficiency-driven CS types, Functional Flagging does not require
syntactic analysis nor proper syntactic integration. However, it was assumed to be done
only for artistic effect (Poplack, 2004). The results for this type seem to be in contrast
with the notion that Functional Flagging can be used as a gauge for high grammatical
proficiency. Watson (2005), who created a continuum for the use of Flagging as a
reduction or achievement strategy, concluded that the occurrences of Flagging can have
shared domains and that their placement across the continuum does not equate to their
functionality. This implies that the relationship of Functional Flagging with grammatical
80
proficiency is not constant. However, since Functional Flagging depends on the

bilinguals choice, it is also suggested that low-proficiency learners are more willing to
break grammar rules for the sake of artistic expression in language. In this case,
bilinguals with low proficiency may tend to write their essays more informally while
bilinguals with high proficiency may prefer to write more formally. If integrated in
schools, Functional Flagging can be taught as a technique in creative writing where
teachers will allow students to break grammar rules for art. Since students first need to
know the rules before they can break them, Functional Flagging can also exercise the
learners understanding of grammar.
In summary of Table 4, Proficiency-driven Intrasentential CS dominantly
followed the order: Nonce Borrowing, Smooth CS, Constituent Insertion and Functional
Flagging, from most to least. This is in contrast with the results from Borlongans (2009)
research which placed Smooth CS at first, Constituent Insertion as second, Nonce
Borrowing at third and Flagged CS (regardless of Functionality) at last. The classification
of Filipino bilinguals was not mentioned in the study nor whether the L1 of the
participants was English or Tagalog. However, the CS structure produced by Borlongans
participants reflected a sub-variety of Philippine English called the Colegiala English,
which is distinct to a group of highly-educated bilinguals who have English as their L1
(Bautista, 1995). This disparity, therefore, can be attributed to the difference in the
population studied by the previous research.
This shows how CS use varies from one bilingual group to another, especially in
the Philippine setting. This diversity of CS production can then be traced back to the
81
same factor that created the numerous Tagalog dialectssocial influence. The rankings
of the proficiency-driven CS types found in Table 4, therefore, would inevitably change
when this same study is administered in different areas or different social groups.
Table 5 summarizes the findings for proficiency-driven CS between the four
clusters. It illustrates that high-proficiency clusters produced more proficiency-driven CS
than the low-proficiency clusters. There was a difference of 11.64% between the high and
low clusters under the Early Bilingual group, and a difference of 7.5% between the high
and low clusters under the Late Bilingual group. This implies that since the difference is
greater between the Early Bilingual clusters, the role of proficiency-driven CS as an
indicator of proficiency is much more evident in Early Bilinguals than the Late
Bilinguals. Moreover, the proficiency-driven CS of Early Bilinguals for both of its
clusters were higher than that of the Late Bilinguals. This result is aligned with table 2
and indicates that there is a direct connection between proficiency-driven CS and
grammatical proficiency. Early Bilinguals can therefore be said to be more proficient
than Late Bilinguals both in grammar as well as in CS.
Table 6, on the other hand, presents the results for Deficiency-driven CS, which
indicates low proficiency unlike the previously examined proficiency-driven CS types.
Low-proficiency bilinguals were found to have produced more Deficiency-driven
Flagging than the high-proficiency bilinguals. This result supports Zyzik (2008) who
noted that proficient learners tend to be more sensitive to syntactic violations which the
less proficient overlook.
82
Upon further examining the bilingual groups, the most and the least occurrence of
this type could still be found in the Early Bilingual group where the Early Bilinguals with
High Proficiency obtained the least and the Early Bilinguals with Low Proficiency
obtained the most. There was also a difference of 19.48% between the high and low
clusters under the Early Bilingual group, and a difference of 9.87% between the high and
low clusters under the Late Bilingual group. Because of this, the relationship of
Deficiency-driven Flagging with grammatical proficiency can be said to be more
observable in Early Bilinguals than in Late Bilinguals.
Since the Early Bilingual High group produced the most proficiency-driven CS
and the least deficiency-driven CS, it is implied that learners with a private school
background who attained high-proficiency are more syntactically sensitive than the other
clusters. In addition, the patterns found in Tables 5 and 6 indicate that bilinguals with
high proficiency produced proficiency-driven CS greater than their deficiency-driven CS.
On the other hand, bilinguals with low proficiency produced proficiency-driven CS less
than their deficiency-driven CS. This pattern implies that as bilinguals improve their
grammatical proficiency, proficiency-driven CS increases while deficiency-driven
becomes less (and vice versa). This measure of progress will help language teachers
evaluate their students through paper and pencil assessment (by administering a written
grammatical proficiency test) and through performance assessment (by allowing them to
use Taglish in recitation, speeches or essays.)
Table 7 presents the significant relationship between Grammatical Proficiency
and the two modes of Intrasentential CS (Proficiency-driven CS and Deficiency-driven
83
CS). The findings indicated in this table prove that there is indeed a relationship between
Grammatical Proficiency and Proficiency-driven CS as well as Grammatical Proficiency
and Deficiency-driven CS. This confirms the effectiveness of Poplacks (1980)
Equivalence Constraint Theory as an indicator of grammatical proficiency and also
supports Bautistas (1998) adaptation of the Intrasentential CS types into Taglish. As
predicted, there was no significant difference between Proficiency-driven CS and
Deficiency-driven CS because the two are part of one measurement; while the former
increases with the increase of grammatical proficiency, the latter decreases with an
increase in the grammatical proficiency. The findings indicated in this table imply that
both proficiency-driven CS and deficiency-driven CS can be used to predict grammatical
proficiency. Language teachers can easily anticipate students grammatical proficiency
level (either high or low) by observing the two CS modes the learner uses in speech or in
writing. Lastly, the directions of relationships between grammatical proficiency and
proficiency-driven CS (Direct) and between grammatical proficiency and deficiencydriven CS (Inverse) support the inference for tables 5 and 6 as well as the proposed
manner of assessment.
Table 8 mirrors Table 7 in such a way that it also correlates grammatical
proficiency with the proficiency and deficiency in CS. However, the grammatical
proficiency variable in this table does not have ascending or descending values rather, it
only has two levels which are divided into high and low. Its purpose is to check whether
or not the proficiency levels in Table 2 were clustered correctly. Since the results in Table
9 indicate that there is a significant difference between the proficiency groups, and the
84
direction of the relationship replicates the direction in Table 7, the high and low
proficiency clusters were acceptably divided.
Table 8 further shows that there is a significant difference in the CS produced by
bilinguals with high and low proficiencies. Because of this, the second null hypothesis is
rejected. This finding implies that Bilinguals with different proficiencies cannot produce
the same frequency of proficiency-driven CS and deficiency-driven CS. In relation to the
previously proposed form of assessment, language teachers will not have a difficult time
in tracking the progress of the learners since there will be no instance of overlapping
the CS frequency of learners with high proficiency will always be distinct from the CS
frequency of learners with low proficiency. Additionally, the clear line between the high
and low clusters suggests that it would be beneficial to create separate CS language
programs for the two proficiency clusters. While the low-proficiency learners would have
to be given an intervention program, the high-proficiency learners could be given a
supplementary program to enhance their grammatical proficiency.
In Table 9, presents a comparison of the two bilingual groups. Regardless of their
grammatical proficiency, both Early and Late Bilingual groups were tested for a
difference in their CS modes. Results indicated that there is a difference between their
Proficiency-driven CS. On the other hand, there was no difference between the bilingual
groups Deficiency-driven CS. Because one of two CS modes differed, the third null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the
Intrasentential CS of the Early and Late Bilinguals.
85
The difference between the proficiency-driven CS of the Early and Late

Bilinguals imply that one of the groups produced a higher frequency for the mentioned
CS type. Based on the descriptive data presented in Table 5, Early Bilinguals scored
13.68% higher than the Late Bilinguals. Conversely, the absence of a significant
difference for deficiency-driven CS indicates that Bilingualism is not a factor that affects
the deficiency-driven CS of learners; combined Low-proficiency learners from the Early
and Late Bilingual groups will produce the same range of deficiency-driven frequency.
This also applies to the combined High-proficiency learners.
In summary, the above discussions indicate several pedagogical implications.
Firstly, Early Bilinguals have a greater advantage in mastering both grammatical
and linguistic proficiency than Late Bilinguals. This disparity between the two groups is
the result of Early Bilinguals early age of L2 acquisition, extended time spent in school
(resulting to improved curriculum offering), smaller teacher-student ratio in private
schools and availability of resources. Because of the presence of several demographic
factors, the disparity between the public and private schools has resulted into differed
quality of education. This cannot be addressed by merely acquiring L2 at an earlier age
but by giving the students the same conditions of learning.
Moreover, analysis of the proficiency-driven CS types implied a number of
possible pedagogical incorporation. One of these is the vertical integration of the
vocabulary items between the Filipino and English subjects. This would help learners
with low proficiency to know the equivalents of L1 and L2 words and would lessen the
use of Nonce Borrowing as a strategy to cope with their limited vocabulary.
86
It is also implied that Early Bilinguals are more analytic than the Late Bilinguals
and know the intersection of two languages (or switch sites). As a result, Early Bilinguals
would more easily grasp the concept of Subject-verb agreement and Parts of Speech. In
addition, it is proposed that prepositions and conjunctions, which were the most recurrent
switch site for Smooth CS, should be highlighted in the teaching of grammar.
Furthermore, Constituent Insertions were discovered to be greater in the Late
Bilingual Group than the Early Bilingual group because this type of proficiency-driven
CS was socially-dependent. Meanwhile, low-proficiency learners had the most frequency
of Functional Flagging, implying that they are more willing to break grammar rules for
the sake of artistic expression. Therefore, this type of CS can be taught as a technique in
creative writing.
Results of this study also confirms that while Grammatical Proficiency and
Proficiency-driven CS have a direct connection, Grammatical Proficiency and
Deficiency-driven CS have an inverse connection. This illustrates that Proficiency-driven
CS is an indicator of high grammatical proficiency whereas Deficiency-driven CS is an
indicator of low grammatical proficiency. Used as a measure of progress, the relationship
between these variables will help language teachers assess the learners grammatical
proficiency. As long as the proficiency-driven CS increases and the deficiency-driven CS
becomes less, improvement continues. Moreover, they can now evaluate their students
not only through paper and pencil assessment (by administering a written grammatical
proficiency test) but also through performance assessment (by allowing them to use
Taglish in recitation, speeches or essays).
87
Finally, it was also found that there is a significant difference in the CS produced
by the four clusters, specifically pointing toward the distinction between high and low
proficiencies. This implies that it would be beneficial to create separate CS language
programs for the two proficiency clusters. While the low-proficiency learners would have
to be given an intervention program, the high-proficiency learners could be given a
supplementary program.
88
Chapter IV
Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation
This chapter provides an overview of the entire research, generalizations

established by the results and suggestions for further research.
Summary of Findings
The research presented and examined the relationship between grammatical
proficiency and code-switching (CS) among Early and Late Bilinguals. These two
bilingual groups were subdivided into two namely High proficiency and Low proficiency,
as determined by the Grammatical Proficiency test. Following this, the frequency of
Intrasentential CS occurrences for each participant were also divided into two modes:
Proficiency-driven CS and Deficiency-driven CS. This categorization of participants
resulted into four clusters namely: High-proficiency Early Bilinguals, Low-proficiency
Early Bilinguals, High-proficiency Late Bilinguals and Low-proficiency Late Bilinguals.
The bases for comparing the early and late bilingual groups were the results from the
clusters grammatical proficiency test and Intrasentential CS occurrences.
1. Results of this study show that the Early Bilingual group attained higher proficiency
scores than the Late Bilingual group by one level. While the clusters under the Early
Bilingual group got mean scores of 81.07 (Advanced) and 51.80 (Intermediate), the Late
Bilingual group attained mean scores of 68.20 (Upper Intermediate) and 46.73 (Lower
Intermediate).
89
2. In total, the respondents produced 1615 proficiency-driven CS occurrences whereby

53.93 % was Nonce Borrowing, 38.95 % was Smooth CS, 06.50 % was Constituent
Insertion and 00.61 % was Functional Flagging. On the other hand, the same groups of
respondents also produced 385 deficiency-driven CS occurrences.
3. Findings show that there is a significant relationship between Grammatical
Proficiency and Intrasentential CS.
4. It was also found that there is a significant difference between bilinguals with high
and low proficiencies.
5. Lastly, there is a significant difference in the proficiency-driven CS produced by
Early and Late Bilinguals. However, no difference was found for deficiency-driven CS.
90
Conclusion
The term Code-Switching (CS) has long possessed a negative connotation in
educational institutions. Being frowned upon as a compensation strategy, CS was never
associated with high grammatical proficiency. This research, however, has proved CS to
be otherwise. Not only does the Intrasentential CS have a significant relationship with
Grammatical Proficiency, it can also gauge whether a bilingual has a high or low
proficiency.
Upon comparing the results of the Early and Late Bilinguals, it was found that the
former group produced higher grammatical scores as well as more proficiency-driven CS.
This illustrates the evident linguistic gap between Private and Public schools. While
Early Bilinguals (Private school students) produce CS which is constant with their
grammatical proficiency, the ability of Late Bilinguals CS to determine grammatical
proficiency is quite limited.
To address this linguistic gap, findings of this research can be used to create
future intervention or supplementary programs where students can be taught to master L1
and L2 separately by analysing and translating their recurring CS types or simply use it as
a form of language assessment.
With these conclusions, this study stands by the notion that since Intrasentential
CS and grammatical proficiency are directly linked, CS should be allowed in educational
institutions and integrated as a tool for language learning.
91
Recommendations
1. One limit of this study can be found in the form of CS used. Though spoken CS is
more authentic than the written form, the latter was used for practicality. This resulted to
minor problems which came in the form of punctuation, spelling and penmanship.
Though the researcher laid out guidelines so that these did not interfere with the results of
the study, it is highly recommended that future studies investigate the spoken form since
it is more likely to produce a higher frequency of CS.
2. With more time, researchers are recommended to get more participants to lessen the
variance in CS occurrences. Following this, it is suggested to test the occurrence of
Constituent Insertion and Functional Flagging again with a bigger sample size in order to
ascertain their ability to indicate grammatical proficiency.
3. Lastly, it is highly suggested for future studies to test the application of this research
as a form of assessment or as a key variable in a language intervention or supplementary
program.
92
References
Adamou, E. (2010). Bilingual speech and language ecology in Greek Thrace: Romani
and Pomak in contact with Turkish. doi: 10.1017/S0047404510000035
Andrade, A. R., & Sagun, D. (2010). The relationship of text messaging and grammar
skills of fourth year high school students (Unpublished baccalaureate thesis).
Assumption College, San Lorenzo, Makati.
Andrews, J. F., & Rusher, M. (2010). Codeswitching techniques: Evidence-based
instructional practices for the ASL/ English bilingual classroom [Electronic
version]. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 407-424. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=11d2396c-ef2d-415994cf-b3ac2f55a8b6%40sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=9
Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation. NY: Routledge.
Backus, A., & Dorleijn, M (2009). Loan translations versus code-switching. In B. E.
Bullock, & A. J. Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic codeswitching (pp. 75-93). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bautista, M. L. S. (1995). Notes on three sub-varieties of Philippine English. Readings in
Philippine Socio Linguistics 2nd ed. Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University
Press
Bautista, M. L. S. (1998). Another look at Tagalog-English code-switching. In M. L. S.
Bautista (Ed.), Pagtanaw: Essays on language in honor of Teodoro A Llamzon
(pp. 121-146). Manila, the Philippines: The Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Bautista, M. L. S. (2004). Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse.
93
Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 226-233.

Besa, L. M. (2009). Relationship between code-switching and academic performance:
basis for an action plan (Unpublished master's thesis). Rizal Technical
University, Mandaluyong.
Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency,
and learning to read in two writing systems. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.580.
Bista, K. (2010). Factors of code switching among bilingual English students in the
university classroom: A survey [Electronic version]. English for Specific
Purposes World, 29 (9). Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/356148/Factors_of_Code
_Switching_among_Bilingual_English_Students_In_the_University_Classroom_
A_Survey
Borlongan, A. M. (2009a). A survey on language use, attitudes, and identity in relation to
Philippine English among young generation Filipinos: An initial sampel from a
private university [Electronic Version]. Philippine ESL Journal, 3, 74-107.
Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/183864/A_Survey_on_Language_
Use_Attitudes_and_Identity_in_Relation_to_Philippine_English_among_Young_
Generation_Filipinos_An_Initial_Sample_from_a_Private_University
Borlongan, A. M. (2009b). Tagalog-English code-switching in English language classes:
Frequency and forms. TESOL Journal, 1, 28-42. Retrieved from
http://dc399.4shared.com/doc/dFtc1bzc/preview.html\
Bugayong, L.K.(2011). Taglish and the social role of code switching in the Philippines.
94
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 42, 1-19.

Bullock, B. (2009). Phonetic reflexes of code-switching. In B. E. Bullock, & A. J.
Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 163181). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boztepe, E. (2005). Issues in code-switching: Competing theories and models. Retrieved
from journals.tclibrary.org/index.php/tesol/article/ download/32/37
Cantone, K. F. (2005). Evidence against a Third Grammar: Code-switching in ItalianGerman Bilingual Children. Retrieved from http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/
035ISB4.PDF
Cardenas-Claros, M.S., & Isharyanti, N. (2009). Code switching and code mixing in
internet chatting: Between 'yes', 'ya', and 'si' a case study [Electronic version].
JALT CALL Journal, 5(3), 67-78. Retrieved from http://www.jaltcall.org/journal/
articles/5_3_Cardenas.pdf
Castro, C. D. (2004). The role of Tagalog in ESL writing: clues from students thinkaloud protocols. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 23-39.
Cengage Learning (2013). The Common European Framework (CEFR) of reference for
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved from
http://elt.heinle.com/pages/cef.html.
Center for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2002). Theoretical Framework. Retrieved
from http://www.language.ca/pdfs/final_ theoreticalframework3.pdf
Chan, B. H-S. (2009). Code-switching between typologically distinct languages. In B. E.
95
Bullock, &A. J. Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic codeswitching (pp. 182-198). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chung, C., & Pennebaker, J. (2007). The psychological function of function words. In K.
Fiedler (Ed.), Social Communication (pp. 343-359). Retrieved from
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/pennebaker/reprints
/Chung&JWP.pdf
Dayag, D. T. (2002). Code-switching in Philippine print ads: A syntactico-pragmatic
description. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 33-51.
Dench, A. (2004). Variations in hyphen usuage when writing 'Taglish' verbs. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 41-48.
DepEd. (2012). Guidelines on the implementation of the Mother Tongue-Based
Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/
cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DO%20No.%2016,% 20s.%202012.pdf
Dictionary.com (2013). Constraint. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constraint?s=t
Dictionary.com (2013). First language. Retrieved from
http://thesaurus.com/browse/first+language?s=t
Dictionary.com (2012). Pattern. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pattern?s=t
Dictionary.com (2013). Utterance. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utterance?s=t
Dorleijn, M., & Nortier, J. (2009). Code-switching and the internet. In B. E. Bullock,
96
&A. J. Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp.

127-141). New York: Cambridge UniversityaPress.
Dumanig, F.P., David, K.M., & Symaco, L. (2010). Competing roles of the national
language and English in Malaysia and the Philippines: Planning, policy and use
[Electronic version]. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 2012,
1(2), 104-115. Retrieved from http://crice.um.edu.my/
downloads/3Dumanig%20et%20al.pdf
Durano, F. (2009). Attitudes towards English and Fil-English code-switching amongst
high school students in Ormoc City, Philippines (Thesis). Retrieved from
http://dspace.mah.se/bitstream/handle/2043/9650/Filipino-English.pdf
Dulm, O. V. (2007). The grammar of English-Afrikaans code switching: A feature
checking account. Retrieved from http://www.lotpublications.nl/
publish/articles/002423/bookpart.pdf
Fava, E., & Hull, R. (2010). Language development though a bilingual lens. In E.F.
Caldwell, (Ed.), Bilinguals: cognition, education and language processing
(pp.201-214). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2011). An introduction to language, 9th ed.
Canada: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Goldbarg, R. N. (2009). Spanish-English codeswitching in email communication.
Language@Internet, 6. doi: 0009-7-21398.
Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first-and second-language factors related in
97
predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking

children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. doi:
10.1037/a0014320.
Guglielmi, R.S. (2008). Native language proficiency, English literacy, academic
achievement and occupational attainment in limited-English-proficient students:
A latent growth modeling perspective. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.322.
Haspelmath, M. (2009). Lexical borrowing: concepts and issues. In M. Haspelmath & U.
Tadmor (eds.), Loan words in the worlds languages: A comparative handbook.
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.ph/
books?id=OYFMqEJ1KCgC&pg=PA41&lpg=
PA41&dq=distinguishing+nonce+borrowing&source=bl&ots=jVSgz4Zq3M&sig
=fch3PCpIvIxIfEN4PmQXRoU-7ks&hl= en&sa=X&ei=QgcJUdqdF4iYiAe
W3oGICg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=distinguishing%20nonce%20
borrowing&f=false
Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of
Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 19(4), 273-304. doi:
10.1191/0267658303sr224oa
Hull, R., & Vaid, J. (2007). Bilingual language laterization: A meta-analytic tale of two
hemispheres [Electronic version]. Neuropsychologia, 49(9), 1987-2008. Retrieved
from http://people.tamu.edu/~jvaid/labweb/HullVaid2007.pdf
Jalal, R. (2010). A suggestion to use codeswitching as an L1 resource in the students
98
written work: A pedagogical strategy (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from

http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/
L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS85ODcyOA==.pdf
Johnson, J. B., & Reynolds, H. T. (2013). Political science research methods, 7th ed.
Retrieved from http://college.cqpress.com/sites/psrm/Home/ chapter6.aspx
Kieffer, M. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency,
concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in
the United States. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.851.
Kailasam, T. P. (2010). Code-switching in Kailasams play-Poli Kitty [Electronic
Version]. Language in India, 10, 194-204. Retrieved from
http://www.languageinindia.com/sep2010/mahalakshmikailasam.pdf
Kroeger, P. R. (2005). Analyzing grammar: An introduction. NY: Cambridge.
Lacsamana, L. C. (2003). Filipino: Wika at panitikan sa makabagong henerasyon 3.
Makati, Philippines: Diwa Scholastic Press, Inc.
Llanes-Leao, G. (2007). English language: Utilization in the University of Baguio: An
auxiliary exploration. UB Research Journal, 31(1), 33-55.
Maastricht University Language Centre, English Department. (2002). English Diagnostic
Test (Version 2, Standard). Retrieved from http://www.fdewb.
unimaas.nl/publicrelations/general/contract/english_test.pdf
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Paoloeri, D. (2012). Language switching and language
competition. Second Language Research, 28(2), 131-149.
doi:10.1177/0267658311434893.
99
Manzini, M. R., & Savoia, L. M. (2011). Grammatical categories: Variation in romance

languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Gaps in second language
sentence processing. SSLA, 27, 53-78. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050035
Markus, M. (2008). The relevance of spoken features in English as a foreign language
(EFL). English Today 96, 24(4), doi:10.1017/S0266078408000357
Martin, I. P. (2006). Code-switching practices in tertiary-level courses. PSSC Social
Science Information, 34(1-2), 123-137.
McEwan-Fujita, E. (2010). Ideology, affect, and socialization in language schift and
revitalization: The experiences of adults learning Gaelic in the Western Isles of
Scotland. doi: 10.1017/S0047404509990649
Melchers, G., & Shaw, P. (2011). World Englishes, 2nd edition. London: Hodder
Education.
Metila, R. A. (2007). Recurrent patterns of English-Filipino code-switching: Bases for
language teaching modifications [Electronic version]. Philippine Journal for
Language Teaching, 46. Retrieved from http://dc354.4shared.com/doc/
G0ymgrrk/preview.html
Moises, A. (2010). Some legal bases of Philippine education. Retrieved from
http://alexmoises.tripod.com/mind-and-soul/id51.html
Monderin, V. C. (2005). Analyzing the issues behind the decline in language proficiency
among Filipino language learners. Far Eastern University English Language
Journal, 1, 1-9.
100
Namba, K. (n.d.). An overview of Myers-Scottons matrix language frame model.

Retrieved from http://yayoi.senri.ed.jp/ research/re09/namba.pdf
National Statistics Office. (2012). Enrolment in Government and Private Schools by
Level of Education SY 1985-1986 to SY 2011-2012. Retrieved from
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_educ.asp
Parker, F., & Riley K. (2010). Linguistics for non-linguists, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson
Pascasio, E. M. (2003/2004). The Filipino bilingual from a sociolinguistic perspective.
The Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(2)/35(1), 69-79.
Payvey, E. L. (2010). The structure of language: An introduction to grammar analysis.
Edinburgh: Cambridge.
Philippine National Statistical Coordination Board (PNSCB). (n.d.). Definitions:
Education. Retrieved from http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ru12/DEFINE/DEFEDUC.HTM
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes Ill start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN
ESPAOL. Center for Puerto Rican Studies, 581-618. Retrieved from
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/sociolinguistics/shanapoplack/
francais/pubs/articles/Poplack1980a.pdf
Poplack, S. (1993). Language contact [Electronic Version]. In D. R. Preston (Ed.),
American dialect research, (pp. 251-282). Retrieved from
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=jyp7Ck_GptoC&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&
dq=smooth+Flagged+nonce+and+constituent+insertion&source=bl&ots=VXcvsz
9GVa&sig=H0T4R-vknLfspm33ep4OEW-PfBc&hl=fil&sa=X&ei=e9xFUfq8I-
101
2jigfw6ICYBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=smooth%20Flagged%20n
once%20and%20constituent%20insertion&f=false
Poplack, S. (2004). Code-switching. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K.J, Mattheier & P.
Trudgill (Eds.), Soziolinguistik. An international handbook of the science of
language, 2nd edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Retrieved from
http://www.sociolinguistics.uottawa.ca/shanapoplack/pubs/articles/Poplack
2004.pdf
Regala-Flores, E. (2011). An examination of the patterns and functions of TagalogEnglish code-switching in two oral discussions. Philippine Journal for Language
Teaching, L1, 56-67.
Reiter, S., Pereda, E., & Bhattacharya, J. (2009). Measuring second language proficiency
with EEG synchronization: How functional cortical networks and hemispheric
involvement differ as a function of proficiency level in second language speakers.
Second Language Research, 25(1), 77-106.
Riehl, C. M. (2005). Code-switching in bilinguals: Impacts of mental processes and
language awareness. Retrieved from http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/151ISB4.PDF
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L.A. (2008). Second language processing: when are first and
second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24(3), 397430. doi:10.1177/0267658308090186
Scherer, L. C., Fonseca, R. P., & Ansaldo, A.I. (2010). Methodological issues in research
102
on bilingualism and multilingualism. In E.F. Caldwell, (Ed.), Bilinguals:

cognition, education and language processing (pp.167-179). New York: Nova
Science Publishers, Inc.
Sebba, M. (2005). Towards a typology and analytical framework for mixed-language
texts. Retrieved from http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/ mark/ISB5.PDF
Sebba, M. (2009). On the notions of congruence and convergence in code-switching. In
B. E. Bullock & A. Jacueline, (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of linguistic codeswitching (pp. 40-57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Senega, C., Maranan, D. G., Lacson, A., Escala, J., & Palcon, M. (2008). The English
proficiency level among education students of Trinity University of Asia. The
Trinitian Student Researcher, 1, 95-105.
Shanklin, M. T. (1994). The communication of grammatical proficiency. The Even
Yearbook 1994, 147-174. Retrieved from
http://shanklin.sdsu.edu/Linguistics/CommunicationL.pdf
Shook, A., & Marian, V. (2010). Language processing across modalities: Insights from
bimodal bilingualism. Cognitive Sciences 2010, 5(1), 57-98. Retrieved November
21, 2012, from: http://comm.soc.northwestern.edu/bilingualismpsycholinguistics/files/Shook-Marian-2010.pdf
Singhal, V. (2011). Definition of second language acquisition. Retrieved from
http://www.brighthubeducation.com/language-learning-tips/70729-definingsecond-language-acquisition/
Stammers, J.R., & Deuchar, M. (2012). Testing the Nonce Borrowing hypothesis:
103
Counter-evidence from English-origin verbs in Welsh [Electronic Version].

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 630-643. doi:
10.1017/S1366728911000381
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language
lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning and grammatical
class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 387-422.
doi:10.1017/S0272263106060177
Taweel, A. Q., & Btoosh, M. A. (2012). Syntactic aspects of Jordanian Arabic-English
intra-sentential code-switching [Electronic Version]. Linguistica online. Retrieved
from http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/taweelbtoosh/tab-001.pdf.
Tempo. (2009). Fight to save Philippine dialects. Retrieved from
http://www.balita.ca/2009/02/languages-and-dialects-in-the-philippines/
Thompson, R. M. (2003). Filipino English and Taglish: Language switching from
multiple perspectives [Electronic Version]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Tomiyama, M. (2009). Age and proficiency in L2 attrition: data from two siblings. doi:
10.1093/applin/amn038
Treffers-Daller, J. (2005). Code-switching. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier &
P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics/soziolinguistik: An international handbook of
the science of language and society [Electronic Version], pp. 1469-1483.
Retrieved from http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=
6773827B0D29408593899784B7E86AB5
104
Ultram, M. L. S. (2008). The perceived levels of English proficiency of the first year
college students of Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod for academic year 2007-2008.
Ad Sapientiam, 7, 63-84.
UNESCO-IBE. (2006). Philippines: Early childhood care and education (ECCE)
programmes. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0014/001472/
147225e.pdf
UNESCO-IBE. (2006/2007). World Data on Education: Philippines, 6th ed. Retrieved
from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload /archive/ Countries/WDE/
2006/ASIA_and_the_PACIFIC/Philippines/Philippines.pdf
Van Hell, J. G., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Event-related brain potentials and second
language learning: syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different proficiency
levels. Second Language Research, 26(1), 43-74. doi:10.1177/02676583
09337637
Viado, C. R. (2007). The history of bilingualism in the Philippines: How. Spanish and
English entered the Filipino culture. Retrieved from http://www.ic.nanzanu.ac.jp/tandai/kiyou/No.35/Cora_R_Viados.indd.pdf
Watson, G. (2005). A Model for the Functional Interpretation of CodeSwitching in NNSNS Contact Situations [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from
http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/181ISB4.PDF
Watson, J. (2001). How to Determine a Sample Size: Tipsheet #60. Retrieved from
http://www.extension.psu.edu/evaluation/pdf/TS60.pdf
Wright, K. (2010, January 7). The importance of grammar (part 2). Manila Bulletin, PE
105
Yague, M. T. R. (2007). Code-switching and politeness among Philippine-based and

foreign-based Filipinos: A sociolinguistic study of e-mail exchanges of members
of an e-group (Unpublished baccalaureate thesis). Manila: De La Salle University.
Yanagihara, Y. (2007). A study of bilingual education in the Philippines: Difference
between pupils degree of understanding between learning mathematics in
Cebuano and English [Electronic Version]. The Kelai Journal of International
Studies, 19, 175-201. Retrieved from http://www.ukeiai.ac.jp/issn/menu/ronbun/no19/19-175_yanagi.pdf
Yuan, B. (2010). Domain-wide or variable-dependent vulnerability of the semanticssyntax interface in L2 acquisition? Evidence from wh-words used as existential
polarity words in L2 Chinese grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
26(2), 219-260. doi:10.1177/0267658309349421
Zirker, K.A.H. (2007). Intrasentential vs. intersentential code switching in early and late
bilinguals (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ETD/id/1050
Zyzik, E. C. (2008). Null objects in second language acquisition: grammatical vs.
performance models. Second Language Research, 24(1), 65-110. doi:
10.1177/0267658307082982
Appendix A
Letters to Validators
106
107
108
109
Appendix B
Letters to Schools
July 19, 2013
MR. EDMAR L. LACEDA

Principal
Pugad Lawin High School
Project 8, Quezon City
Dear Mr. Laceda:

The undersigned is a Fourth Year Education Major in English student currently enrolled in Thesis
Writing and Defense. The title of her study is Selected Bilinguals Second Language
Grammatical Proficiency and Intrasentential Code-Switching. In this regard, she would like
to seek your permission to allow her to conduct the actual study in your school.
Attached to this letter is the copy of the test for your evaluation.
Should you have any concern about the study and the research tools to be used, she is more than
willing to accommodate your request at your most convenient time. You can contact her at this
number 09264070802 or e-mail address stephanierobillos@yahoo.com
Your immediate response on this matter is highly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Respectfully yours,
Noted by:
PROF. VALERIE ANNE CRUZ-MIRANDA

Thesis Adviser
110
August 15, 2013
MS. JULIET A. DEMALEN

Principal, Basic Education
Trinity University of Asia
Cathedral Heights, Quezon Avenue
Dear Ms. Demalen:

Respectfully yours,
Noted by:

Thesis Adviser
111
July 19, 2013
FR. ANTONIO B. ALA II, OFM Cap

Rector
Lourdes School of Quezon City
Apo Avenue, Quezon Avenue
Dear Fr. Antonio:

Respectfully yours,
Noted by:

Thesis Adviser
112
Appendix C
Research Instruments
DO NOT WRITE ON THIS SHEET.
DIRECTIONS:
Bibigyan kayo ng 2 topics, which you will need to answer in essay form. The
topics will be given ng magkahiwalay, meaning the second topic will only be given
pagkatapos ninyong sagutan ang first.
You will be given 30 minutes para matapos ang unang essay and another 30
minutes para sa pangalawang essay. (1 hour in total)
Taglish (Tagalog-English) is the preferred language for your essays para
ma-explain ninyo ang each topic ng mas maayos. Paki limit ang length ng bawat essay
sa minimum of 5 paragraphs and a maximum of 10 paragraphs. Make sure na
substantial at malaman ang explanations. You may utilize the back part of the answering
sheet.
You will not be graded based sa structure ng inyong essay. However, kailangan
kayong gumamit ng complete sentences at hindi putol-putol na phrases or words.
Gawing neat and legible ang inyong handwriting and avoid unnecessary erasures.
Good luck!
113
Name: ___________________________________
School: ____________________
Yr. & Section: _____________________________
Date & Time:________________
TOPIC # 1:
Tried and Tested Techniques Para sa Paghahanda sa Exam
114
Name: ___________________________________
School: ____________________
Yr. & Section: _____________________________
Date & Time:________________
TOPIC # 2:
Ano ang Dream mo for yourself?
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Appendix D
Guidelines for Intrasentential Code-Switching (CS) Analysis
(Based on Bautista, 1998 & recurring CS forms in the present data)
I.
General Guidelines
1. Errors due to pronunciation (except for troublesome spelling) will not be counted
This goes the same for errors in punctuation. However, periods/ exclamation
points/ question marks/ ellipses will be the basis for dividing the essays into
sentences.
2. The translation method works best. (Code-switched clause into English then into
Tagalog). The translation closest to the original is the base language.
3. To distinguish among the types of CS, analyze through elimination method in
this order: Deficiency-driven CS, Nonce Borrowing, Constituent Insertion,
Functional Flagging or Smooth CS.
4. No CS type can overlap.
5. Titles and Proper names are not considered as CS.
II.
Determining the base language
1. Base language can be determined by the placement of the subject (S), the verb (V) and
the object (O).
a. English dominantly uses the SVO pattern
b. Tagalog dominantly uses the VSO pattern but also uses SVO.
2. Certain noun cases point out to the VSO/SVO patterns.
a. Example: the presence of I, My and You in a code-switched clause
indicates that the base language is automatically English.
b. Example: the presence of Ako, Ko, ikaw, mo, ka, nila or sila in a
code-switched clause indicates that the base language is automatically Tagalog.
3. Tagalog prepositions or kailanan ng pangngalan such as ng and mga also point
out that a clause uses Tagalog as its base language.
4. However, the use of "akin or ako followed by -y or -ay is not applicable to all
structures because the meaning can change
Example:
English Sentence:
"I dont want to wish anymore"
Correct Tagalog Translation:
"Ayaw ko nang humiling pa"
Word-for-word Tagalog Translation:
"Ako'y hindi gusto na humiling pa"
5. The base language is Tagalog if adjectives are preceded by Na or ng
Example: sikat na tao, malaking bahay.
6. If the hidden subject in one language can be translated to the other language also in
hidden form, then base language is "Both English and Tagalog".
126
7. If the clause is translatable as SVO to SVO, or VSO to VSO then the base language is
"Both English and Tagalog", provided that the sentence is translated word for word.
8. Even if the placement (either SVO or VSO) is preserved but there are lacking words/
prepositions, we consider it as the latter language because if the base language was for
example, English, the lacking words for English will be there.
III.
Distinguishing Between the Types of CS.
1. Deficiency-driven Flagging:
- is grammatically wrong (count every wrong occurrence in a sentence, but if the other
wrong occurrences are a result of the first, count it as one occurrence).
- only applicable to sentences with CS.
- Those errors in sentences w/c are in pure English or pure Tagalog are not considered.
- If the occurences are in Tagalog, some phonologically integrated Tagalog forms are
accepted like "Iyon" or "Ayun"/ "Bangin" or "Bangil"
- There are instances when a Deficiency-driven Flagging is followed by Smooth CS:
Example: "By doing these THING, PAPASA ka sa exam."
The "THING" is a deficiency-driven occurrence while "PAPASA", being the first
word of the connected Tagalog phrase is the smooth.
Examples of Deficiency-driven Flagging:
- Repetition of the same word/ preposition (eg "para for me)
- unparalleled CS ("Shes dancing while maglalaba)
2. Nonce Borrowing :
-
One word/ idiom with concrete meaning,

dependent on the base language of that clause
If two succeeding words are already inserted, as long as they can stand alone without
the other, it's already considered as Smooth CS.
Example: Isang RED LEAF ang nahulog mula sa puno ng manga.
(Both Pink and Leaf can be used separately and are usually not merged).
- morphologically integrated words (e.g. "magrereview")
Since morphologically integrated words do not have a standard format/ structure
so as long as the spelling of the root word is correct, that is considered as Nonce
Borrowing
- Sometimes, Nonce Borrowing (morphological) & smooth can be found in 1 sentence:
Example: "As a STUDENT, SYEMPRE NAGREREVIEW din ako."
127
3. Constituent Insertion:
- tag expressions such as "Daw, Na, Yung, Mas, Mga (as estimation), Eh, etc.
- any preposition/ word without concrete meaning by itself
- usually one word/ short phrases as expressions
Examples: "Oh my God!"; "Hay nako!"
- dependent on the base language of that clause
- change of spelling such as "iskor" and "importante" is not considered as CS since it is
no longer part of the English "morphomology" but as been fully integrated into the
Tagalog society.
- The presence of the filler "ano..." is not present during CS.( this result is attributed to
the form of CS used which was writing)
4. Functional Flagging:
- repitition for 'art' or effect
Example: "Walang iba na makakatulong sa atin, walang iba kundi si God"
"Diba nakasanayan na natin na magreview- magreview- magreview?"
5. Smooth CS:
- grammatically correct & flowing language
- When marking, always highlight the first word of the string of words that is in a
different language.
128
Appendix E
Sample Essay Analysis Sheet
Underline- reason for base language
Italicized- Grammatical Error
violet - reseacher's notes
Blue - Smooth CS;
Green - Functional Flagging;
Red - Deficiency-driven Flagging;
Pink - Constituent Insertion;
Orange - Nonce Borrowing
#
Clause
Base Language
Eng Tag Both

TOPIC NO. 1: "TRIED AND TESTED TECHNIQUES PARA SA PAGHAHANDA SA
EXAM"
1
As a student,
1
My teacher said na kailangan maging ready lagi
(missing connector) expect the unexpected.
First, kailangan magreview a-head of time. (The use of

the hidden subject in tagalog will not be preserved if
translated to English)
Take down all the important details

then just explain it
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
or gumawa ka ng sariling language
na tipong ikaw lang nakakaintindi connected sa topic.
Second, para di ma-preasure
8
1
9
1
1
1
(missing connector)go shopping, watch movies, eat a lot
the day before the exam
para madaling tandaan
or basically do everything you want.
kailangan ma-relax ka
# of
clauses
in your own words
syempre nagrereview din ako.

2
# of Intrasentential
Occurences
FF DDF CI NB
10
11
12
1
1
13
1
14
15
16
The most important thing
17
on the day before the exam or (at the) last minute,
18
don't you ever review
19
or you can just refresh
20
but don't look back
21
to your reviewer.
22
Lastly, drink a lot of water (hidden subject will remain

hidden if translated into Tagalog)
23
before and during the exam
24
but not too much
25
when you're sleepy

because it gives oxygen to the brain
26
1
27
129
na makapagpapagising sayo.
8
Yun lang, salamat.
But, the most important thing in taking (an) exam
28
29
or habang nagrereview ay magpray
30
31
dahil isa ito sa mga susi
32
para madali mong maintindihan
33
lahat ng lessons mo.
34
TOPIC NO. 2: "ANO ANG DREAM MO FOR YOURSELF?"

10
Since when I was a kid,
35
I'd like to be an architect.
36
11
My dad is an architect too.
37
12
Lagi akong tumatabi sa kanya
38
pag gumagawa siya ng plano,
39
naingganyo ako
40
so I told them na ayun talaga gusto ko.
13
I want to build houses, (and) buildings
and I also want
1
1
para gumawa or magsagawa nung bahay
Of course, I want to build my own house,
(missing connector) my dad told me
16
46
47
48
2
49
50
is 'pag bahay mo na ang ginagawa mo ng plano
kasi kailangan perfect
kasi nakakahiya daw
pag mas maganda yung bahay ng ginawan mo.

(construction)
44
45
that the hardest thing in making (a) plan
16
(missing connector)magpapatayo ako ng mga bahay,

(missing connector) townhouse na ibebenta or ipaparent.
15
42
43
to have my own trabahador
I want it also to be my investment,
41
1
na ginawan ko ng plano.
14
51
52
53
1
54
55
56
And lastly, I want to build my own family,
57
(and) I want to marry a chef
58
so that he'll cook for me
59
or if not I want (him) to be a professional
60
with a kind heart
61
and to be a good father
62
to my future children.
63
TOTAL
10
22
14
11
10
16
63
130
Appendix F
Normality Test for Grammatical Proficiency Distribution
Low Proficiency Clusters

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
Grammatical Proficiency
Df
.113
Score
Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.
.200*
30
Statistic
df
.960
Sig.
30
.313
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
High Proficiency Clusters

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
Grammatical Proficiency
Score
.106
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Df
Shapiro-Wilk
Sig.
30
.200*
Statistic
.950
df
Sig.
30
.167
131
Appendix G
Encoded Data in Excel
Raw scores of Early Bilinguals
Raw Score
Level of Proficiency
Group
EB1
EB2
EB3
EB4
EB5
EB6
EB7
EB8
EB9
EB10
EB11
EB12
EB13
EB14
EB15
EB16
EB17
EB18
EB19
EB20
EB21
EB22
EB23
EB24
EB25
EB26
EB27
EB28
EB29
88
87
85
84
84
84
84
82
80
79
77
76
76
75
75
59
59
58
56
56
54
53
53
53
52
50
50
48
39
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Upper intermediate to advanced
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Lower intermediate to intermediate
Lower intermediate to intermediate
Lower Intermediate
Lower Intermediate
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
EB30
37
Lower Intermediate
Low
132
Raw scores of Late Bilinguals

Raw Score
Level of Proficiency
Group
LB1
LB2
LB3
LB4
LB5
LB6
LB7
LB8
LB9
LB10
LB11
LB12
LB13
LB14
LB15
LB16
LB17
LB18
LB19
LB20
LB21
LB22
LB23
LB24
LB25
LB26
LB27
LB28
LB29
81
75
72
72
70
69
69
68
68
68
64
63
62
61
61
52
51
50
48
48
48
47
47
47
47
46
45
44
44
Advanced
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Upper intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Lower intermediate to Intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
Lower intermediate
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
LB30
37
Lower intermediate
Low
133
Base Language of Early Bilinguals With High Grammatical

Proficiency
Base Language
English
Tagalog
Both
EB1
15
EB2
12
26
EB3
20
10
EB4
21
EB5
10
15
EB6
10
17
14
EB7
18
EB8
32
15
EB9
11
18
10
EB10
22
10
EB11
25
EB12
26
21
EB13
22
EB14
21
19
EB15
18
19
TOTAL
69
311
162
Base Language of Early Bilinguals With Low Grammatical

Proficiency
Base Language
English
Tagalog
Both
EB16
10
22
14
EB17
17
EB18
25
15
EB19
36
EB20
17
11
134
EB21
18
EB22
EB23
EB24
16
EB25
19
EB26
12
11
EB27
EB28
12
26
EB29
14
EB30
TOTAL
22
102
257
90
Base Language of Late Bilinguals With High Grammatical

Proficiency
Base Language
English
Tagalog
Both
LB1
14
20
LB2
42
LB3
18
LB4
20
LB5
12
LB6
21
LB7
24
LB8
11
LB9
28
LB10
37
10
LB11
LB12
26
LB13
29
11
LB14
13
LB15
20
TOTAL
65
328
91
135
Base Language of Late Bilinguals With Low Grammatical

Proficiency
Base Language
English
Tagalog
Both
LB16
10
15
LB17
34
LB18
10
LB19
13
LB20
11
LB21
16
13
LB22
15
LB23
16
LB24
12
LB25
20
LB26
12
LB27
19
LB28
13
LB29
18
22
LB30
TOTAL
91
234
27
136
Intrasentential Code-Switching Types of Early Bilinguals With High Grammatical Proficiency

# of Intrasentential Occurences
Smooth
(S)
Functional
Flagging
(FF)
Constituent
Insertion
(CI)
Nonce
Borrowing
(NB)
EB1
14
27
EB2
12
20
38
EB3
14
29
43
EB4
22
28
EB5
16
EB6
25
19
47
EB7
21
25
EB8
28
43
71
EB9
13
12
29
EB10
19
16
37
EB11
22
23
50
EB12
29
35
EB13
19
25
EB14
13
31
47
20
204
0
0
1
29
14
320
35
553
12
52
EB15
TOTAL
Total
Proficiencydriven CS
Deficiencydriven Flagging
(DDF)
137
Intrasentential Code-Switching Types of Early Bilinguals With Low Grammatical Proficiency

Smooth
(S)
Functional
Flagging
(FF)
Constituent
Insertion
(CI)
Nonce
Borrowing
(NB)
Total
EB16
11
16
28
10
EB17
19
EB18
17
28
46
EB19
12
22
34
EB20
19
23
EB21
16
23
18
EB22
11
EB23
11
19
EB24
14
11
26
EB25
13
22
13
EB26
10
18
EB27
10
12
EB28
16
18
35
16
EB29
19
12
16
153
0
4
1
14
15
194
32
365
4
127
EB30
TOTAL
Deficiencydriven
Flagging
(DDF)
138
Intrasentential Code-Switching Types of Late Bilinguals With High Grammatical Proficiency
Smooth
(S)
Functional
Flagging
(FF)
Constituent
Insertion
(CI)
LB1
13
LB2
LB3
LB4
Total
Deficiencydriven
Flagging
(DDF)
19
37
15
23
12
14
13
32
LB5
12
21
LB6
19
26
LB7
11
20
37
LB8
14
22
LB9
11
18
31
14
LB10
14
32
54
LB11
LB12
11
10
24
LB13
28
31
LB14
14
23
6
134
1
4
0
34
21
237
27
405
14
84
LB15
TOTAL
Nonce
Borrowing
(NB)
139
Intrasentential Code-Switching Types of Late Bilinguals With Low Grammatical Proficiency
Smooth
(S)
Functional
Flagging
(FF)
Constituent
Insertion
(CI)
Nonce
Borrowing
(NB)
Total
Deficiency
- driven
Flagging
(DDF)
LB16
13
25
LB17
11
18
LB18
13
21
LB19
10
LB20
13
17
15
LB21
10
12
10
32
13
LB22
10
13
LB23
18
28
12
LB24
17
10
LB25
15
20
LB26
LB27
13
19
LB28
12
16
LB29
10
17
36
12
7
122
0
19
0
28
2
120
9
289
6
122
LB30
TOTAL
140
Appendix H
SPSS-Generated Output
Peason r Analysis between Grammatical Proficiency and Proficiency-driven CS

Descriptive Statistics
Mean
Std. Deviation
Grammatical Proficiency Score
61.95
14.592
60
26.93
12.415
60
Correlations
Pearson Correlation
Grammatical
Proficiency-driven
Proficiency Score
Code-Switching
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sum of Squares and Cross-products

Covariance
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Covariance
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
.491**
.000
12562.850
5252.800
212.930
89.031
60
60
**
.491
.000
5252.800
9093.733
89.031
154.131
60
60
141
Peason r Analysis between Grammatical Proficiency and Deficiency-driven CS

Mean
Deficiency-driven Flagging
Std. Deviation
61.95
14.592
60
6.42
4.454
60
Correlations
Pearson Correlation
Grammatical
Deficiency-driven
Proficiency Score
Flagging
1
Sig. (2-tailed)

Covariance
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Covariance
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
-.488**
.000
12562.850
-1869.750
212.930
-31.691
60
60
**
-.488
.000
-1869.750
1170.583
-31.691
19.840
60
60
142
Peason r Analysis between Proficiency-driven CS and Deficiency-driven CS

Mean
Std. Deviation
26.93
12.415
60
6.42
4.454
60
Correlations
Pearson Correlation
Proficiency-driven
Deficiency-driven
Code-Switching
Flagging
1
Sig. (2-tailed)

Covariance
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Covariance
N
-.093
.480
9093.733
-303.333
154.131
-5.141
60
60
-.093
.480
-303.333
1170.583
-5.141
19.840
60
60
143
T-test Analysis for CS between High and Low Grammatical Proficiency Groups
Group Statistics
Grammatical
Mean
Proficiency
Std.
Std.
Deviation
Error
Mean
High Proficiency
30
32.07
13.282
2.425
Low Proficiency
30
21.80
9.091
1.660
High Proficiency
30
4.53
3.730
.681
Low Proficiency
30
8.30
4.372
.798
Deficiency-Driven Flagging
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
t-test for Equality of Means
for Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
Sig. (2-
Mean
Std.
95% Confidence Interval
tailed)
Difference
Error
of the Difference
Differenc
Lower
Upper
e
Equal
variances
2.180
.145
3.494
58
.001
10.267
2.939
4.384
16.149
.001
10.267
2.939
4.368
16.165
.001
-3.767
1.049
-5.867
-1.666
.001
-3.767
1.049
-5.868
-1.665
assumed
Proficiency-driven
Equal
Code-Switching
variances
51.28
3.494
not
assumed
Equal
variances
1.361
.248
-3.590
58
assumed
Deficiency-Driven
Equal
Flagging
variances
56.59
-3.590
not
assumed
144
T-test Analysis for CS between Early and Late Bilinguals
Group Statistics
Bilingualism
Mean
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
Early Bilingual
30
30.60
13.119
2.395
Late Bilingual
30
23.27
10.661
1.946
Early Bilingual
30
5.97
4.760
.869
Late Bilingual
30
6.87
4.158
.759
Deficiency-Driven Flagging
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
t-test for Equality of Means
for Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
Sig.
Mean
Std.
95% Confidence
(2-
Differe
Error
Interval of the
tailed)
nce
Differe
Difference
nce
Lower
Upper
Equal
variances
1.189
.280
2.376
58
.021
7.333
3.086
1.155
13.511
2.376
55.670
.021
7.333
3.086
1.150
13.517
-.780
58
.439
-.900
1.154
-3.210
1.410
-.780
56.973
.439
-.900
1.154
-3.211
1.411
assumed
Proficiency-driven
Equal
Code-Switching
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
.883
.351
assumed
Deficiency-Driven
Equal
Flagging
variances
not
assumed

Selected Bilinguals Second Language Gram

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selected Bilinguals Second Language Gram

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRAMMATICAL

Selected Bilinguals Second Language Grammatical Proficiency

A Thesis Presented to the Education Department

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

Seeking to discover the relationship between grammatical proficiency and Intrasentential

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

Chapter III Results and Discussion

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

Test Items for Each Grammar Point . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Grammatical Proficiency Scores of Early and Late Bilinguals. . . . . . . . . .64

Base Language of Early and Late Bilinguals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Proficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals

Proficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals

Deficiency-driven CS Types of Early and Late Bilinguals

Significant Relationship between Grammatical Proficiency

Significant difference of CS between High and Low

Significant difference of CS between Early and Late Bilinguals . . . . . . . 71

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

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

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

Background of the Study

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

Review of Related Literature

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

Taglish has been deemed acceptable. Because of this, it is perceived as a natural

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

In order to come to a full understanding of bilingualism, the history of bilingual

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

(3) VO order will have verb from OV language

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

test is administered, the same level of respondents obtained an intermediate level-score.

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

tasks, create a discontinuity in representing concepts. Because of this obstruction, the

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

communicative efficiency. Deficiency-driven CS is the opposite of the first type

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

recipient language), which is the main language in a code-switched utterance to which a

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING

Types of Intrasentential Code-Switching in Taglish.

GRAMMATICAL PROFICIENCY AND CODE-SWITCHING