SOCIAL MOTIVATION FOR CODE SWITCHING

AMONG SAUDI ARABIC-ENGLISH BILINGUAL CHILDREN

by

Muhammad Ahmad Alasmari

B.A., King Khalid University, 2011

A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics

Department of Applied Linguistics

in the Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
August 2016
 ProQuest Number: 10163418

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10163418

Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Copyright by Muhammad Ahmad Alasmari, 2016
All Rights Reserved
 THESIS APPROVAL

SOCIAL MOTIVATION FOR CODE SWITCHING

AMONG SAUDI ARABIC-ENGLISH BILINGUAL CHILDREN

By

Muhammad Ahmad Alasmari

A Thesis Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in the field of Applied Linguistics

Approved by:

Dr. Janet M. Fuller, Chair

Dr. Krassimira D. Charkova

Dr. Laura J. Halliday

Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
April 22, 2016
 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Muhammad Ahmad Alasmari, for the Master of Arts degree in Applied Linguistics, presented on
April 22, 2016, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

TITLE: SOCIAL MOTIVATION FOR CODE SWITCHING AMONG SAUDI ARABIC-

ENGLISH BILINGUAL CHILDREN

MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. Janet M. Fuller

This study observed the occurrence of code switching among six Arabic-English Saudi

bilingual children living in the United States at the time of the study. A mixed-methods research

design using quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques was applied in order to investigate

the presence of code switching in the speech of the participants, the different types of code

switching involved, and their social motivations. Three research instruments were used for the

purpose of the study: a parental questionnaire, language portraits, and recorded Arabic and

English storytelling sessions. Syntactic and sociolinguistic approaches were employed; the

Markedness Model by Myers-Scotton (1993) was adopted to examine the social motivation

behind code switching, and Poplack’s (1980) classification of code switching was used to

identify code switching patterns. Overall, the findings revealed the participant’s dominant and

preferred language to be English, the presence of intrasentential and intersentential code

switching, a preference for intersentential over intrasentential code switching, the function of

code switching, and the role of social motivations in language choice and code switching.

Moreover, this study contributes to the current research on the Markedness Model among

bilingual children by providing evidence for Myers-Scotton (1993) as marked and unmarked

code switching was observed among the participants. This study also agrees with previous

studies (e.g. Myers-Scotton, 2002; Bolonyai, 2005; Fuller, Elsman, & Self, 2007) that argued

i
that bilingual children are rational and social actors who choose a given code intentionally to

achieve certain social goals in a given interaction.

ii
 DEDICATION

To my dear wonderful parents, Ahmad and Salma, who surrounded me with love, caring,

motivation and support — and who taught me to love, fear, and worship Allah.

To my dearest siblings who supported and encouraged me during the writing of this

thesis.

To my beloved wife, Salma, and my lovely daughter, Juman, who eagerly accompanied

and supported me during my academic career.

With profound gratitude to Allah, I dedicate this thesis and the fruits of my study to them.

Muhammad

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Allah Almighty for

guiding me to the successful completion my graduate studies.

I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Janet Fuller, for her continuous patience,

motivation, and fascinating knowledge. Her guidance was instrumental during the research and

writing of this thesis.

Furthermore, I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Krassimira

Charkova and Dr. Laura Halliday, for their insightful feedback and encouragement.

I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Leila Monaghan, the person who

first planted the seed from which my passion in sociolinguistics has grown, for her guidance.

Thanks also go to Ms. Diane Korando, the office manager of the linguistics department at

SIU, for all the help and support she provided during my graduate studies.

My deepest appreciation to each of the children who participated in this study as well as

to their parents who kindly support me while collecting the data.

My heartfelt thanks to all my friends in Carbondale (Al-Medhal group) who accompanied

me during some of the most beautiful years of my life. Special thanks to Abdullah Alfaifi, my

best friend, for being in my life.

Thank you all.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction.................................................................................................1

CHAPTER 2 – Literature Review .......................................................................................3

CHAPTER 3 – Methodology .............................................................................................14

CHAPTER 4 – Data Analysis ............................................................................................21

CHAPTER 5 – Conclusion ................................................................................................66

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................70

APPENDICES

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................76

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................85

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................86

VITA ............................................................................................................................................89

v
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

Table 1 ...........................................................................................................................................18

Table 2 ...........................................................................................................................................22

Table 3 ...........................................................................................................................................32

Table 4 ...........................................................................................................................................32

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

Figure 1 ..........................................................................................................................................24

Figure 2 ..........................................................................................................................................25

Figure 3 ..........................................................................................................................................26

Figure 4 ..........................................................................................................................................27

Figure 5 ..........................................................................................................................................29

Figure 6 ..........................................................................................................................................30

Figure 7 ..........................................................................................................................................31

Figure 8 ..........................................................................................................................................34

vii
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Code switching, the alternation between languages or dialects in oral or written

communication, has been studied widely, both from a theoretical as well as an empirical

framework. From 1990 to 2001 alone, approximately 1300 matches for code switching can be

found on the Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) electronic database (Benson,

2001). This number increased between 2005 and 2008 to nearly 1800 matches (Nilep, 2006).

Code switching as an area of study is connected to linguistics, psychology, anthropology,

and related disciplines. Each field studies the various aspects of code switching from different

perspectives. In the field of linguistics, for instance, this phenomenon is investigated from

syntactic, sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic points of view, which has led to the development

of a rich literature on this topic. Code switching is found among people from all ages, genders,

societies, and languages. Many studies have analyzed adult-adult, child-child, and adult-child

code switching in different language pairs around the world. However, to this researcher’s

knowledge, few studies have been conducted on Arabic-English bilingual children, with the main

exceptions being Bader (1998), Bader and Minnis (2000), Alenezi (2006), and Abugharsa

(2013). Due to the increasing number of Saudi families who have immigrated to the U.S. and the

growing number of Saudi children enrolled in American public schools, bilingualism has

increased. Thus, there is a growing need to study code switching among Saudi bilingual children.

This study examines the presence of code switching among bilingual Saudi children to

determine the frequency, patterns, and social motivations of code switching as well as its

functions in this context. Syntactic and sociolinguistic approaches were applied. In terms of the

sociolinguistic approach, the Markedness Model by Myers-Scotton (1993) was adopted to

 2

examine the social motivation behind code switching. Syntactically, Poplack’s (1980)

classification of code switching was used to identify code switching patterns. A quantitative

analysis was made to measure the frequency of code switching employed in a storytelling

activity. The target code switching language pair to be examined in this study was in both

directions, from Arabic to English and from English to Arabic.

The present study used a mixed-methods research design to seek answers to the following

questions:

1. How frequently does code switching occur among Saudi bilingual children?

2. What is the ratio of English-Arabic and Arabic-English code switching among Saudi

bilingual children?

3. What types of code switching are used by Saudi bilingual children?

4. What are the social motivations for code switching among Saudi bilingual children?

The structure of this study is as follow. Chapter 2 provides a literature review of research

related to the heart of this study. Chapter 3 explains the methodology followed to collect and

analyze the data. Chapter 4 presents and analyzes the collected data. Chapter 5 provides the

conclusion, limitations, and suggestions for further studies.

 3

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The present study investigated the presence of code switching in the speech of Saudi

bilingual children, the different types of code switching involved, and their social motivations.

This chapter provides a review of code switching literature followed by a section on the theories

that served as the framework for the current study.

Research on Code Switching

There are many definitions of code switching, but in general, it is a phenomenon that

involves alternating between languages or dialects in oral or written communication. Gumperz

(1982) defines code switching as “the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages

of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems” (p. 59). Poplack

(2001) sees code switching as the mixing of two or more languages within a discourse when the

interlocutor and the topic do not change. Woolard (2005) refers to code switching as a linguistic

process in which a speaker uses two or more codes (languages or dialects) in a single

conversation. Myers-Scotton (1993) defines the phenomenon more broadly as any shifting

between two distinct systematic and grammatical languages or between two dialects of the same

language. Since this study was mainly guided by a sociolinguistic approach, Myers-Scotton’s

definition was the one adopted for the present study.

There is a great amount of controversy in the field of linguistics concerning the

emergence of code switching. Auer (1998) considers code switching research to have originated

in three studies conducted by Jakboson, Fant, and Halle in the 1950s. On the other hand, Benson

(2001) asserts that the term “code switching” was first used by Vogt in 1954 in his review of the

language of content. In making this assertion, Benson ignores Haugen and Weinreich’s claims to
 4

have introduced the term because they never used it in their early work in the 1950s. The

important fact to be considered here is that the first use of the term “code switching” dates to the

mid-twentieth century.

Instances of code switching as a linguistic phenomenon have been examined and

analyzed using grammatical, psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, and language acquisition

approaches. Grammatical and syntactic approaches classify types of code switching according to

grammatical criteria, such as intersentential switching, intrasentential switching, and tag

switching (Poplack, 1980). Several studies—such as those by Poplack (1980), Di Sciullo,

Muysken, and Singh (1986), and Myers-Scotton (1993)—address syntactic constraints and the

systematic process of code switching to determine where code switching occurs in speech. More

specifically, Poplack (1980) introduced the Free Morpheme Constraint and the Equivalence

Constraint. The Government Model Constraint was proposed by Di Sciullo, Muysken, and Singh

(1986) to examine the role played by the hierarchy of syntactic theory in allowing and

disallowing code switching in a sentence. Later, Myers-Scotton (1993) used the Matrix

Language Frame Model to determine where code switching can and cannot occur in a clause.

Code switching has also been investigated using a psycholinguistic approach. The

psycholinguistic perspective concentrates on the ways in which code switching is stored in the

brains of bilingual individuals, with variations found in the different types of bilingualism

(Weinreich, 1953). Green (1986) examined how code switching is processed in both a normal

and a damaged brain. Other studies have focused on bilingual children, examining how code

switching may occur in its early stages and how children differentiate between codes (Lindholm

& Padilla, 1978; Meisel, 1994).

 5

Code switching has been studied in relation to the field of language acquisition from

different perspectives, such as language interference, language development, and educational

code switching. As for the status of code switching between languages, some scholars support

the notion that code switching should be seen as a form of language interference (e.g., Cook,

1991; Skiba, 1997; Offiong, 2005; Offiong & Okon, 2013). They have generally associated code

switching and similar linguistic phenomena with language interference because code switching is

basically a process of transferring elements of one language to another at various levels,

including phonological, grammatical, lexical, and orthographical.

Moreover, some studies have looked at bilingual children’s code switching from a

language-development point of view (e.g., Arias & Lakshmanan, 2005). They investigated the

code switching development patterns in a Spanish-English bilingual child and its similarities to

adult code switching. They found that the child selected the language to use according to the

interlocutors and context. Moreover, they found that the English utterances gradually increased,

while the Spanish utterances mainly increased in a Spanish-language context. Another study on

code switching development patterns was done by Nakamura (2005), who found that “the

balance in quantity of the two languages changed; Japanese increased while English decreased.

Consequently, the amount of codeswitching also decreased” (p. 1688).

Sociolinguistic approaches have also been applied to code switching phenomena.

Woolard (2005) stated that “a significant segment of sociolinguistic research since the mid-

twentieth century has been devoted to understanding how bilingual and multilingual

communities organize their multiple linguistic resources” (p. 73). Studies on code switching have

been conducted at both the macro-level and the micro-level. Nguyen (2014) stated that “both

approaches are concerned with the meaning of language but differ in the point where this
 6

meaning derives from” (p. 48). Macro-level approaches have led to language choice studies

related to social factors, such as the ways in which alternations between codes or varieties occur

with regard to the community (Ferguson, 1966) or the domains in which alternations occur

(Fishman, 1966). Micro-level approaches have led to code switching studies related to the

situational level, such as the pragmatic classification of types of code switching as Situational

Switching, Metaphorical Switching, and Conversational Switching (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972;

Gumperz, 1982), as well as to the conversational code switching approach (Gumperz, 1982).

However, other approaches, such as the Markedness Model of Myers-Scotton (1993), are an

attempt to “incorporate the micro- and the macro- perspectives into CS [code-switching]

research” (Boztepe, 2005).

The present study was conducted using a grammatical analysis and sociolinguistic

approach. The data were analyzed syntactically according to the code switching classifications

proposed by Poplack (1980). For the sociolinguistic approach, Myers-Scotton’s (1993)

Markedness Model was adopted for use in this study. The theoretical framework is discussed in

greater detail below.

Theoretical Framework

Poplack’s Classification of Code Switching

Poplack (1980) differentiated between types of code switching according to their

occurrence in a sentence. First, intersentential code switching takes place between sentences, as

shown in Example 1, taken from Cantone (2007, p. 73).

Example 1

A: Do you know Pavarotti’s newest song?

B: Yes, I know it. Ḕ una bellissima canzone.

 7

It is a beautiful song.

A: Anche a me piace.

Also to me like (I) it.

The second type of code switching is intrasentential, which occurs when a code is

inserted into the middle of a sentence within clause boundaries. Example 2, taken from Dewaele

(2000, p. 42), illustrates intrasentential switching between English, French, and Dutch.

Example 2

Mimi, what do you préfèrez, een boterham?

Mimi, what do you prefer, a slice of bread?

The third type is known as tag switching, which refers to the insertion of a word or phrase

that is considered an interjection in one language into an utterance in another language, as shown

in Example 3, taken from Cantone (2007, p. 73).

Example 3

I was happy about that, capisci?

I was happy about that, do you understand?

Each of these types has its own characteristics and features. Intersentential code

switching, as can been seen in the examples, is not as complex as intrasentential code switching

because the syntactic structures of the two languages are not broken. Intersentential code

switching requires a fair degree of fluency in both languages. On the other hand, intrasentential

code switching requires equal fluency in both languages. The bilingual speaker must know how

and when it is acceptable to code switch, and the switch should conform to the systems of both

languages rather than occurring at random (Joshi, 1982). As a result, intrasentential code

switching is quite complex because of “the high probability of violation of syntactic rules, as
 8

well as the requirement of a great knowledge of both grammars and how they map onto each

other” (Jalil, 2009, p. 4). Tag switching is considered the simplest type because it does not

require fluency or knowledge of both language systems and poses no great risks of violating the

syntactic rules of either language (Jalil, 2009). A fourth type, intraword code switching, was

introduced by Myers-Scotton (1993). It refers to code switching that occurs at the level of

individual words.

The Markedness Model

Myers-Scotton (1993) proposed the Markedness Model to explain the socio-

psychological motivations behind code switching. According to Myers-Scotton, code switching

in a multilingual community is based on the association of particular code choices with Rights

and Obligations (RO) sets during social interactions. Each code indexes culturally determined

RO sets, which are “derived from salient situational features and relevant cultural values” (p. 7).

In this model, there is an unmarked code for any given situation, and use of this code indexes the

persona and role relationship the speaker wishes to have.

Moreover, speakers’ decisions about alternative choices are mainly based on assessing

costs and rewards. According to the negotiation principle (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 113),

speakers work out what code choice best suits their goals in a given conversation. Along with the

role played by the negotiation principle in interpreting code switching functions, she also

proposed three maxims for use in the analysis of code switching: the unmarked choice maxim,

the marked choice maxim, and the exploratory choice maxim.

According to Myers-Scotton (1993), to use the unmarked choice maxim is to “make your

code choice the unmarked index of the unmarked RO set in talk exchanges when you wish to

establish or affirm that RO set” (p. 114). This maxim refers to the influence of societal norms in
 9

guiding the speaker to choose the expected codes in a medium of interaction. Under Myers-

Scotton’s maxim, code switching can be classified as sequential unmarked code switching and

unmarked code switching. Sequential unmarked code switching occurs when there is a change in

the situational factors during a conversation that lead the speaker to index the new unmarked RO

set. An example of this type of code switching is when the speaker code switches as a result of a

change of topic during a conversation. Here, the speaker would like to index a new unmarked

RO set since the first unmarked RO set has been changed. Sequential unmarked code switching

is mostly related to intrasentential code switching. On the other hand, code switching as an

unmarked choice occurs when “the speaker wishes to index two identities or attitudes toward the

interaction (and therefore two rights and obligations sets) simultaneously” (p. 149). Unmarked

code switching occurs frequently in certain communities.

Unmarked code switching is related to intersentential code switching (Myers-Scotton,

1993). According to Myers-Scotton, there are several conditions that should be met in unmarked

code switching to let the switching occur. The first condition is that the speakers must be

relatively equal in terms of bilingualism and socio-economic factors. The second condition is

that the speakers should have the desire to embody the mutual identity. Third, the speakers must

be capable of evaluating the codes that carry their identities in the interaction. Since code

switching requires knowledge of the two languages, a fairly high degree of proficiency in both

languages is necessary in this scenario.

The second maxim is the marked choice maxim, which is to “make a marked code choice

which is not the unmarked index of the unmarked RO set in an interaction when you wish to

establish a new RO set as unmarked for the current exchange” (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 131). In

this maxim, conversational expectations are violated by the speakers and the marked choice is
 10

made to start a new RO set. According to Myers-Scotton, emotional factors and the negotiation

of social distance are the motivations that push speakers to produce marked code switching. It

should be mentioned that marked code switching is the most common type since it can occur

within any community and under any conditions.

The exploratory choice maxim occurs in the following type of situation: “When an

unmarked choice is not clear, use CS to make alternate exploratory choices as candidates for an

unmarked choice and thereby as an index of an RO set which you favor” (Myers-Scotton, 1993,

p. 142). Thus, this type of code switching occurs because the speakers are not sure which RO set

should be used; it is a result of vague situational values or conflicting norms. Therefore, in the

process of exploratory code switching, the speaker introduces an RO set through a certain code

to let the interaction occur. If a failure should occur, another code will be introduced.

Several studies on children’s language choice across languages have been conducted in

view of the Markedness Model, as seen in the following section.

Farris (1992) used Myers-Scotton's Markedness Model to investigate a type of register

variation referred to as “babytalk” as well as adult speech in Mandarin at a Taiwanese preschool.

In her study, the data were derived from naturally occurring conversations between preschool

children and their teachers. This study was conducted in several preschools in Taiwan. The

results revealed that there were two registers used in these preschool settings, the babytalk

register and “the voice of authority,” which refers to the language style used by teachers when

speaking to preschool students. She claimed that both of these registers are motivated by Chinese

cultural assumptions regarding children and childhood. Furthermore, in terms of talking to

children, she found that teachers switched between the unmarked voice of authority and a

babytalk register. In turn, when teachers used a babytalk register, children reacted differently,
 11

“the younger children in particular seeking [those] teacher[s] out for comfort or assistance” (p.

206). Thus, the children who participated in this study were aware of the variation between two

registers and knew how to react to each register.

Myers-Scotton (2002) conducted a study on a Malawain family containing two adults and

two children to show that the unmarked choice can be identified through a quantitative analysis

(a frequency-based criterion) and that frequency can also identify the marked choice. The data

were collected from everyday conversations that were held between both parents and their two

children. The participants were fluent speakers of both Chichewˆa, their first language, and

English. The findings of this study revealed that when bilingual speakers did not use both

languages equally in a given conversation, the more used language represented the unmarked

choice. Furthermore, she found that when the participants in the same conversation were from

different generations, there was no one language used as the unmarked choice for all participants.

This meant that not all participants in a given conversation would have the same unmarked

choice, which would vary. The study found Chichewˆa was the parents’ unmarked choice, while

English represented their children’s unmarked choice.

Fuller, Elsman, & Self (2007) examined the linguistic performance of Spanish- English

bilingual children who live in the U.S. The participants consisted of seven children in the 4th and

5th grades who were enrolled in a school where Spanish and English were both languages of

instruction. English was the language of instruction for morning classes while Spanish was used

for the afternoon classes. One of the authors attended classes with these children for about one

academic year, twice a week, to collect the data during classroom activities. In order to create a

comprehensive analysis of the data, two models were employed, the Markedness Model (Myers-

Scotton, 1993; Myers-Scotton & Bolonyai, 2001) and the Sequential Approach (Auer, 1988,
 12

1995; Li Wei, 1988). Although both models provided a sociopragmatic and structural analysis

for code switching in this study, the authors favored the Markedness Model as it could provide

an explanation for each level of linguistic performance and could stand for social identities.

Both qualitative and quantitative analysis showed that children used the Spanish code to

communicate with each other, i.e., Spanish was the peer code. On the other hand, English was

used in exchanges with teachers or during teacher-fronted activities. Particularly, in view of the

Markedness Model, most instances of code switching can be seen as a strategy to index and

negotiate roles within an exchange. On the other hand, the Sequential Approach introduces

language choice as a contextualization cue and sequential conversational structure, which means

there is interactional meaning for using one code over another. Thus, the Sequential Approach

provided an explanation for conversations where the overall pattern of interaction consisted of

switching back and forth between languages.

Bolonyai (2005) investigated the linguistic choices among Hungarian-American bilingual

girls in the ages of six and seven. The aim of this study was to examine how these Hungarian-

American girls, who were English-dominant, used code choices to construct relations of

dominance and subordination during school activities, which consisted of competitive

conversation. This study’s data were derived from a corpus of 18 hours of six American-

Hungarian families’ conversations that were tape-recorded in the United States. Out of the entire

corpus, only 90 minutes were analyzed for the purpose of this study.

Bolonyai’s (2005) results showed that Hungarian-American bilingual pre-adolescent girls

used different linguistic strategies in order to manage power asymmetries in their talk. They

switched between two codes, Hungarian and English, according to their personal reasons and

desires. For instance, one of the girls asked her mother during their playtime about the best
 13

player in English, the unmarked code for her, multiple times even though the rule was to

communicate only in Hungarian. Bolonyai argued that young bilingual children are rational and

social actors who can employ code switching to serve their personal desires and to have optimal

outcomes.

In general, these studies have shown the Markedness Model to be a helpful theory when

analyzing bilingual children’s language use. In particular, it provides a better understanding of

the social aspects of language alternation. Therefore, this study used the same theory employed

in the aforementioned empirical studies. These empirical studies mainly elicited data from

bilingual children in different age groups, which would indicate that this theory could be used to

analyze the present study’s data. Furthermore, these studies have focused on different ages and

kinds of bilingual children, preschool Mandarin-speaking children (Farris, 1992); Chichewˆa-

English bilingual children (Myers-Scotton, 2002), 4th and 5th grade Spanish-English bilingual

children (Fuller, Elsman, & Self ,2007), and six- and seven-year-old Hungarian-English bilingual

girls (Bolonyai, 2005). The present study was thus intended to supplement these previous studies

as it targeted a group Saudi Arabic-English bilingual children, which to the best of my

knowledge had never been studied before for the purpose of exploring the role of social

motivation in language choice and code switching. Before presenting and analyzing the results,

the methodology followed in this study is described in chapter 3.

 14

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The methodological approach employed for the present study was a mixed-methods

research design, using both quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques in a data-driven

approach to find frequency, patterns, and social motivation of code switching.

This chapter explains the aims of the present study, the questions it hopes to answer, the

participants, the data collection processes, the contextual nature of the subject, and how the data

were analyzed.

Research Aims and Questions

This study aims to assess the presence and frequency of code switching phenomena

among bilingual Saudi children by answering the following questions.

1. How frequently does code switching occur among Saudi bilingual children?

2. What is the ratio of English-Arabic and Arabic-English code switching among Saudi

bilingual children?

3. What types of code switching are used by Saudi bilingual children?

4. What are the social motivations for code switching among Saudi bilingual children?

Participants

Six bilingual children were chosen as participants for the purpose of this study. All were

boys between the ages of 9 and 11. At the time of the study, all of the participants were living in

Carbondale, Illinois. In the current study, the participants were assigned the following

pseudonyms: Ali, Mido, Sari, Nori, Misho, and Fadi. They were enrolled in American public

schools in which the language of instruction and education was English. At the time of this

study, two of the children were in third grade, three in fourth grade, and only one in fifth grade.
 15

Additionally, every participant also regularly attended the Sunday school at the Islamic Center of

Carbondale that was established in 2013. All of the participants were originally from Saudi

Arabia and had lived there for some years. They were selected for several reasons: 1) they were

born in Saudi Arabia and thus had experience speaking Arabic for at least two years or more; 2)

they had spent a minimum of four years in the USA; 3) they were in the third grade or higher and

thus had acclimated to the American culture and had adopted English as their second language;

4) their parents tended to communicate with them in their native language, Arabic; and 5) they

were attending the Islamic Center Sunday school in order to retain and continue learning Arabic.

An additional reason for the selection of these children was that at least one of the parents of

every child was a monolingual Arabic speaker—therefore Arabic was expected to have been

reinforced in the participants’ home on a regular basis, thereby balancing their language use. The

participants were familiar with the researcher beforehand because he was a teacher for this group

of children between September 15 and December 15, 2014, and he was a friend of their parents.

Research Context

This research was conducted in a private Sunday school in Carbondale, Illinois. This

institute is located in the Islamic Center of Carbondale, a non-profit organization funded by the

Saudi Student Association in Southern Illinois University. The aim of this school is to teach,

enhance, and help Arabic competency in Arabic-speaking children. It educates individuals of

four to ten years-of-age, who are separated into three levels: pre-school children, first to second

grade, and third grade and above. A requirement for children to be admitted into this school is to

have enough knowledge of Arabic to communicate in that language. At the time of conducting

this study, each of these three grade levels contained six to ten individuals.
 16

Because this school was only open for two hours a week, every level had its own

schedule. In the highest level—which was the tier most relevant to this research—the school

period was separated into three classes. The initial 25 minutes was for reciting and reading the

Qur’an, followed by a five-minute break. The second class consisted of an hour of activities for

the children to practice their Arabic language skills. The final half hour was for purely

recreational activities.

The Sunday school in Carbondale had a strict language policy that ensured that Arabic

would be used exclusively in education and that English may be used as needed. In this system,

teachers interacted with their students in Arabic, but when a child needed an explanation, English

may be employed, and teachers were generally flexible in this respect. It needs to be stipulated

here that the administrative staff and teachers of the school were all graduate students in

Southern Illinois University in various majors.

Data Collection

The data required for this study was collected in different stages to address the research

questions.

Parental Questionnaire

A questionnaire consisting of six sections was given to the participants’ parents (see

Appendix A). The questionnaire was adapted and modified, after obtaining permission from the

original authors of the questionnaire used by the COST Action ISO804 (see www.bi-sli.org). The

aim of this questionnaire was to gather all important information related to the participants’

language background, medium of instruction at home, language evaluation, and parents’

educational background. This information showed each participant fit the needs of the study. All

information in this questionnaire and all information given by the participant’s parents was
 17

confidential and used purely for the purposes of this research. A consent paper was distributed

before the questionnaire to obtain the parents’ permission (see Appendix A).

Linguistic Portraits

The approach included linguistic portraits, an exercise in which participants were asked

to color-in an image of a child’s body in accordance with their linguistic preference. This

instrument was employed to create a linguistic profile for each participant. To use linguistic

portraits, the following process was applied:

1. Every participant selected a color that was representative of a language.

2. General questions and a subsequent discussion regarding the specific area of the body

were required to engage participants in conversational speech. They were asked to

answer questions about how they hear and speak by coloring the target organs with the

color they felt was appropriate to indicate the language they used most.

3. Questions were added based on what the participants said about what language they

‘thought’ and ‘felt’ in.

This instrument was adapted from Busch (2010). A number of modifications have been

employed to fit the process to this study’s participants.

The ‘Telling a Story’ Activity

In the ‘telling a story’ activity, a series of six images—each addressing a different subject

matter—were shown to the participants. Each participant was asked to look at an image and tell a

story about what he saw. This exercise was undertaken in six one-hour sessions across a six-

week timeframe. Time was allocated equally between the participants, each being given

approximately five minutes. Because it would have been challenging to allow all participants to

speak at the same time about a single image in a single session, a rotational scheme was
 18

employed to sidestep any such potential issue. The six images were employed in every session.

Throughout the initial three sessions, the participants were required to tell a story in Arabic. The

other sessions followed the same procedure but with the use of English instead of Arabic. It

should be mentioned that the participants were divided into two groups because after conducting

the first session, I found that it was difficult to analyze the speech of six children in each session

and with each story. In addition, it was not easy to recognize the speakers when I did the

transcription later on. The participants were divided according to age: Group A included three

that were 11 years old, while Group B included other participants who were 9 and 10 years old.

The schedule in Table 1 shows the allocation of the sessions and topics.

Table 1

Session Languages and Topics

Group Child Telling a Story in Arabic Telling a Story in English

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6
Ali Fire Riding a Washing Receiving Injured Shopping
fighters bike laundry a gift boy
Mido Riding a Washing Receiving Injured Shopping Fire
A
bike laundry a gift boy fighters
Sari Washing Receiving Injured Shopping Fire Riding a
laundry a gift boy fighters bike
Nori Receiving Injured Shopping Fire Riding a Washing
a gift boy fighters bike laundry
Misho Injured Shopping Fire Riding a Washing Receiving
B
boy fighters bike laundry a gift
Fadi Shopping Fire Riding a Washing Receiving Injured
fighters bike laundry a gift boy

This schedule helped avoid repetition and prevented participants from affecting one

another’s responses. Additionally, the activity was designed to boost the participant’s enthusiasm

for participating. The first four images were adopted from Terveen (2013). The initial image is of
 19

fire fighters rescuing a cat, the second depicts a boy learning to ride a bike, the third depicts a

boy washing laundry, and the fourth a child receiving a gift and then playing with it. The fifth

image shows a boy who fell down when he was playing and was retrieved from the website ESL

Printables (Zeynep), and the sixth shows a boy shopping at a grocery store, which was retrieved

from Turtlediary.com. The final two images were added to Terveen’s pictures to address more

generalized subject matter and to boost participant interest in the activity. All pictures are shown

in Appendix C.

Two devices were used to record this activity, and the researcher led the discussion in

these sessions to make sure that each participant had the chance to talk as planned above.

Data Analysis

The assessment and analysis of the data included both qualitative and quantitative means

to devise a set of valid findings. The assessment and analysis stages were conducted as outlined

below.

The initial stage involved analyzing the parental questionnaire to formulate a linguistic

profile for each participant. This phase provided demographic data for each participant.

Additionally, analyzing the linguistic portrait was intended to help ascertain information

regarding the individual’s preferred language. These data were included in the linguistic profile,

which permitted the researcher to create a more comprehensive image of the individual’s

linguistic background and preference.

In the second stage, the audio recordings of the data were transcribed and coded,

following conversation analytic conventions based on Atkinson and Heritage (1984). Therefore,

each utterance was analyzed to address questions regarding the overall occurrence of code
 20

switching and the ratio of code switching in both directions, from English to Arabic as well as

Arabic to English, within a storytelling activity.

The third stage consisted of the examination of qualitative information through the use of

content analysis techniques. After annotating the instances of code switching and measuring the

frequency, the types of code switching that occurred in the data were identified. Furthermore,

each instance of code switching was classified in according to Poplack’s (1980) classification of

code switching (intersentential, intrasentential, and tag switching). Additionally, every instance

of code switching was assessed in a qualitative analysis in terms of the Markedness Model

(Myers-Scotton, 1993).

It should be mentioned that the English translation was inserted when an instance of

Arabic code switching transpired. Any nouns borrowed from another language were exempted

from the research. Therefore, all proper nouns, including the titles of fast-food items, TV shows,

and television channels were exempted from the analysis to maintain its objectivity.

Reliability and Validity

To improve the reliability of this research, all sessions were conducted in a controlled

setting, both with regard to time and location. The sessions were held in isolated classrooms for a

single hour each. Any noise or unwanted sound, in addition to other external disturbances, were

thus controlled for. I carried out the study within six sessions to ensure that individual

participants did not feel stressed or pressured, thereby increasing the validity of the results.

The instruments adapted for use in this study were shortened to contain only the relevant

questions in as straightforward a manner as possible to remove vagueness. The researcher

reviewed the transcriptions twice to ensure accuracy and validity.

 21

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter presents and analyzes the findings of the present study, which aimed to

determine the frequency, types, and social motivations behind the occurrence of code switching

among six Saudi bilingual children. Therefore, three different research instruments were

employed to collect the data. The first section of this chapter introduces the results that were

gathered through the parental questionnaire as well as the language portraits participants were

given to show each of their preferred and dominant languages. The next section is an overview

of the code switching frequency found, followed by a section on the types of code switching

employed by the participants according to Poplack’s (1980) classification of code switching. The

last section gives the social motivation and functions beyond the occurrence of code switching

during both Arabic storytelling sessions and English storytelling sessions according to Myers-

Scotton’s Markedness Model (1993).

Parental Questionnaire and Language Portraits

A parental questionnaire was filled out by the participants’ parents to gain a better

understanding of the participants’ language usage. Then, the participants were given a language

portrait to color in, which aimed to discover their language preferences. The results of these two

were used together to provide a language profile for each participant.

The parental questionnaire aimed to obtain information about the linguistic characteristics

of the participants from the moment they started talking until the moment they began

demonstrating a capacity for two languages at school and home. Furthermore, it gave useful

information about their duration of exposure to the first and second languages and how they

demonstrated their bilingual ability to interact with their parents, siblings, and friends. Not only
 22

that, the parental questionnaires also shed light on the current input sources of the two languages

and which one was dominant as a medium of instruction at home since they were living in a

foreign country where English was the language used at school. The language background taken

from the parental questionnaires is given in Table 2.

Table 2

Participant Language Background

Child Age Grade Age Began Age of School Home

Speaking Exposure Language Language
Arabic to English

Ali 11 5th 1 4 English Arabic/English

Sari 11 4th 2 6 English Arabic/English

Mido 11 4th 2 6 English Arabic/English

Nori 10 3rd 3 4 English Arabic/English

Misho 11 4th 2 3 English Arabic/English

Fadi 9 3rd 2 2 English Arabic/English

The language portraits drew information directly from the participants. They provided

additional information and were used to establish a language profile of the participants that they

created themselves to reveal their language preferences and dominant language as well as their

emotional attachment to their languages. They were asked to color in parts of the outline of a

child’s body according to the languages they most often used to hear, speak, think, and feel. The

following sections provide a detailed language profile for each of the participating children.

Following is each participant’s portrait with a brief description of their language

preferences and usage derived from the language portraits and supplemented by the

questionnaires.
 23

Ali

According to the parental questionnaire, Ali was the oldest participant in the group and

was in the 5th grade at the time of the study. Ali was introduced to English at the age of four

when he moved with his family to the U.S. Before that time, he spoke only Arabic since his

family only spoke Arabic and lived in a country were English is rarely used. When Ali began

attending public school, he started learning English. His entire family started learning English as

well, increasing the opportunities for using English at home. Ali used both Arabic and English in

exchanges with his mother but used only Arabic with his father although his father was a

bilingual doctoral student. In exchanges with his sibling and Arabic-speaking friends, Ali also

used both languages. Ali could communicate and explain facts about himself well in both

languages. Finally, Ali’s English language input was greater than his Arabic language input.

In the language portrait, as seen in Figure 1, Ali first chose the color orange to represent

Arabic and black to represent English. He used black to draw the eyes, which indicated that

English was the most common language he saw. However, he used both colors for the ears and

mouth to indicate that he was exposed to both equally. The same was true of the heart, which

represents the language used for feeling, as it was colored with both black and orange. He used

black mostly for the head to indicate that he used Arabic more for thinking. Interestingly, he

colored in the hands with orange although he was not asked to do so. When I asked him why he

had done this, he said that he mostly used Arabic for greetings. After considering the parental

questionnaire and the language portrait, it could be postulated that Ali’s dominant language was

English.
 24

Figure 1. Ali’s language portrait.

Sari

According to the parental questionnaire, Sari was born in Saudi Arabia where he spent

his first six years, meaning he was only exposed to Arabic during that period of time. When he

turned six years old, he moved with his family to the U.S. and was exposed to English up until

the time of the study. Sari was a student in the 4th grade at an American public school where

English was the medium of instruction. At home, Sari used both languages with his father and

only English with his mother since she was monolingual. When communicating with his friends

and siblings, he mostly used English. Furthermore, his English skills were better than his Arabic

skills as he was exposed to English input more than Arabic input. As a result, he could explain

and speak in English better than Arabic.

In his portrait, in Figure 2, he chose the color blue to represent English and green to

represent Arabic. He covered the chest with blue, which meant that the language of feeling was

mainly English. He also colored the head mostly with blue, which indicated that the language of
 25

thinking was mainly English as well. The mouth, which was meant to symbolize the most spoken

language, was colored both green and blue to indicate that he frequently spoke both languages.

However, he colored the ears with green to indicate that he mostly heard Arabic. Together with

the parental questionnaire, the language portrait suggested that Sari’s dominant language was

English.

Figure 2. Sari’s language portrait.

Mido

According to the parental questionnaire, Mido was born in Saudi Arabia where he was

only exposed Arabic. He moved to the U.S. at the age of six, when his parents decided to let him

attend a U.S. public school. He was in the 4th grade at the time of this study. At school, he spoke

English as it was the language of instruction. At home, he interacted with his father and sister in

both Arabic and English but used only Arabic with his mother as she was monolingual. In his
 26

interactions with friends, he mostly relied on English. Regarding language input, he read and

listened in English more than Arabic. However, he could explain himself well in both languages.

In the language portrait, Figure 3, he used the color orange to represent English and green

to represent Arabic. He used orange to color the eyes, indicating that English was the language

he most often read in. In contrast, he colored the head and chest with green, which meant that the

most used language for thinking and feeling was Arabic. As for the mouth, he gave equal

prominence to both languages by using both colors. Considering the parental questionnaire and

the language portrait, it appeared that English was his dominant language for communicating,

while internally Arabic was the dominant language.

Figure 3. Mido’s language portrait.

Nori

According to the parental questionnaire, Nori was born in Saudi Arabia, where he was

only exposed to Arabic. He and his family moved to the U.S. when he had was four years old. At
 27

the time of this study, he was in the 3rd grade in a U.S. public school, meaning he had been

exposed to English in school for approximately six years. At home, he used both languages to

communicate with all family members but mostly used Arabic with his parents. When he met

with Arabic friends, he communicated with them mostly in English but with some Arabic.

Regarding language input, he was the only participant who could read in both languages.

However, he mostly watched movies in English. Finally, his current language skills in both

languages were comparable, but his Arabic was better as he could use it to interact with others

without experiencing frustration.

In the language portrait, Figure 4, Nori picked the color black to represent English and

green for Arabic.

Figure 4. Nori’s language portrait.

Nori used both colors for the ears, indicating that Arabic and English were equal for him

in terms of hearing. In contrast, he colored the head and chest with green, meaning he used
 28

Arabic more often to think and feel. The eyes were colored mostly black with a little green,

which meant English was the most common language he saw. As for the mouth, he mostly

colored it with green to show that he spoke English more than Arabic. But, it could be concluded

that Arabic was the dominant language since the most color seen in the portrait was green.

Misho

According to the parental questionnaire, Misho was born in Australia, where he spent the

first two years of his life before moving to Saudi Arabia for one year and finally to the U.S. with

his family. He was in the 4th grade in a U.S. public school at the time of the study. Thus, he was

exposed to both languages from birth as he was in English-language daycare and used Arabic at

home. At home, although his parents were bilingual, they followed strict rules to only speak with

their children in Arabic. In contrast, Misho interacted mostly in English with his younger

brother, Fadi, who also participated in this study. With Arabic-speaking friends, Misho used

English most of the time as a medium of interaction. Moreover, he frequently read stories in

English but never in Arabic and also mainly watched movies in English but rarely in Arabic.

Finally, he felt more comfortable interacting with others in English than in Arabic.

In his language portrait, Figure 5, Misho chose the color blue to represent Arabic and

brown to represent English. He colored the eyes, heart, and head with brown to indicate that he

saw, thought, and felt using English more. He used both colors for the ears and mouth, which

indicated both languages were heard and spoken equally. Combining this information with the

parental questionnaire indicated that Misho’s preferred and dominant language was English.
 29

Figure 5. Misho’s language portrait.

Fadi

According to the parental questionnaire, Fadi was born in Saudi Arabia, where he spent

only one year, after which he moved with his family to the U.S. He was exposed to Arabic at

home and English at daycare. At the time of this study, he was in the 3rd grade in a public school

where English was the language of instruction. At home, he interacted with his parents only in

Arabic. However, he used English mostly to interact with his older brother, Misho. He also

preferred English to interact with his Arabic-speaking friends. Furthermore, most of his

recreational activities, such as reading books and watching TV, were in English. As a result, he

liked to communicate with others in English more so than in Arabic.

In his language portrait, Figure 6, he chose orange for Arabic and green for English. He

colored the eyes and ears with green, meaning that English was the language used most for sight
 30

and hearing. On the other hand, he used orange for and mouth, indicating that Arabic was used

more to speak. Interestingly, he used both colors for the heart and head, which reflected equality

between them for feeling and thinking. Combined with the parental questionnaire, the language

portrait suggested that English was his dominant language.

Figure 6. Fadi’s language portrait.

It can be seen that all of the participants in this study ranged in age from 9 to 11. They

were exposed to Arabic during the first three years of their lives, while exposure to English

began between the ages of 2 and 6. All of the participants were enrolled in U.S. public schools at

the time of the study. Therefore, their language at school was English. At home, they used both

languages as one or both parents were bilingual. Generally, English tended to be their dominant

and preferred language except for Nori, whose dominant language was Arabic.
 31

Frequency of Code Switching

As mentioned previously, this study included approximately three hours of audio

recording for the storytelling activity in order to examine the occurrence of code switching

among the participants. The first research question—How frequently does code switching occur

among bilingual Saudi children?—was created to measure the overall frequency of code

switching within the study sample.

To calculate the overall frequency of code switching in both directions in the storytelling

activity, all instances of code switching were computed and converted to percentages. Among

the 475 utterances that were produced by the participants to tell a story, there were 112 (24%)

instances of code switching either in the form of a whole sentence or within clause boundaries,

while 363 utterances (76%) did not include any kind of code switching. Figure 7 shows the

overall percentage of code switching in a storytelling activity.

Code
Switching
24%

No Code
Switching
76%

Figure 7. The overall percentage of utterances with and without code switching.
 32

To answer the second question—What is the ratio of English-Arabic and Arabic-English

code switching among Saudi bilingual children?—the calculation was made according to the

direction of the code switching. Of the 112 utterances containing code switching, 108 (96%)

were from Arabic to English, and only 4 (4%) were from English to Arabic. Table 3 shows the

percentages of code switching in both directions.

Table 3

The Ratio of Code Switching According to Direction

English-Arabic code switching Arabic-English code switching

N % N %
4 4 108 96
Total: 112 (100%)

To address the dominant language during the storytelling activity, only monolingual

utterances were considered to compare the usage of Arabic and English. Here, any instances of

intrasentential code switching were excluded because this type of code switching occurs within a

sentence, but in this case the calculation focused on monolingual sentences that included

intersentential code switching. In both Arabic and English sessions, of the 461 pure utterances

(i.e., those in either Arabic or English), 307 were produced in English and 154 in Arabic. Table 4

shows the number of utterances in each language.

Table 4

The Percentage of Utterances in Arabic and English

English utterances Arabic utterances

N % N %
307 67 154 33
Total: 461 (100%)
 33

Looking at language use throughout the entire activity, as seen in Table 2, it can be noted

that English utterances overwhelmingly outnumbered Arabic utterances. This meant that English

was the dominant language during the storytelling context and therefore the unmarked choice.

This result was in line with Myers-Scotton’s (1993) claim that the more frequent code in a given

interaction is usually labeled the unmarked choice (p. 89). This could explain why the

participants produced more code switching during the Arabic sessions (Arabic-English code

switching). In contrast, fewer instances of English-Arabic code switching took place during the

English sessions. These quantitative findings supported Abugharsa (2013), which found that

English was the unmarked code choice among Libyan Arabic bilingual children. Finally,

switching from Arabic to English being more frequent than from English to Arabic appeared to

be a result of the dominance of English over Arabic among the participants.

In summary, the quantitative analysis revealed that the overall occurrence of code

switching consisted of approximately 24% of all utterances. In addition, the ratio of Arabic-

English code switching was higher than the ratio of English-Arabic code switching. Furthermore,

throughout the activity, participants produced more English utterances than Arabic, which in turn

emphasized the dominance of English among the Saudi bilingual participants in the context of

telling a story.

Types of Code Switching

Poplack (1980) classified instances of code switching according to their position in the

sentence. Intersentential code switching occurs between sentences, intrasentential code switching

within clause boundaries, and tag switching refers to inserting small units from one language into

an utterance in another. Of the 112 instances of code switching produced by participants in the

present study, 98 (88%) were intersentential, while only 14 (12%) were intrasentential, with
 34

there being no instances of tag switching. Figure 8 shows the percentage of intersentential and

intrasentential code switching during the storytelling activity.

100%
88%
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%
12%
10%

0%
Intersentential Intrasentential

Figure 8. Percentage of intersentential and intrasentential code switching.

As seen from Figure 8, intersentential code switching was more frequent than

intrasentential code switching. This could be attributed to intrasentential code switching being

more complex than intersentential code switching since it requires greater knowledge of and

proficiency in the grammar of both languages, whereas intersentential code switching is used

more frequently with bilingual speakers who are dominant in one language over another

(Poplack, 1981; Hammink & McLaughlin, 2000). Romaine (1995) stated that intrasentential

code switching “may be avoided by all but the most fluent bilinguals” (p. 113). As mentioned

before, the participants in the present study were not balanced bilinguals but rather English-

dominant speakers. The findings of this study contrasted with those of Bader (1998), who found

that an Arabic-English bilingual child produced mostly intrasentential code switching.

Furthermore, the findings went against other studies that claimed more frequent use of
 35

intrasentential than intersentential code switching in other languages, such as Kannada and

English (Mathew, 2012), Spanish and English (Arias & Lakshmanan, 2005), and Japanese and

English (Takemoto, 2010). Following are some examples of intersentential and intrasentential

code switching in both directions Arabic-English and English-Arabic.

Intersentential Code Switching

Example 4 shows an instance of intersentential code switching. The direction of the code

switching in this example is from Arabic to English. Here, Ali is relating a story about a boy who

was learning how to ride a bike while his father was encouraging him.

Example 4

1. Ali: ‫أبوه ورى الولد كيف يسوي‬

2. ‫كيف يمشي بالسيكل‬
3. good job ‫فولده قاله‬
4. ‫ قاله كويس‬::‫أ‬
5. ‫بعدين ابوه مشى بالسيكل‬

Translation

1. Ali: the father showed the boy the how to do it

2. how to ride a bike
3. the boy said to him good job
4. a:: said to him good
5. then the father ride the bike

Example 5 is another example of intersentential code switching, but the direction is

English-Arabic. This example is a conversation between Sari and Ali, but Ali switched to Arabic

and inserted an Arabic sentence during the English conversation.

Example 5

1. Sari: okay, i got a question

2. why his eyes like (xxxx)?
3. Ali: none of them. ‫ال ال كان وجه زي كذا‬
4. Mido: now i see =
 36

5. Ali: = see

Translation

1. Sari: okay, i got a question

2. why his eyes like (xxxx)?
3. Ali: none of them. no, no his face was like that
4. Mido: now i see =
5. Ali: = see [laugh]

Intrasentential Code Switching

In the following example, Nori was talking about an injured boy who went to the hospital

to receive medical care. Nori inserted the word “check” within an Arabic clause.

Example 6

1. Nori: doctor ::the ::the .. ‫وبعدين‬

2. ‫ عليه‬check ‫امم سوى‬
3. ‫و هوه كان بخير‬
4. ‫و قاله هوه بخير بس الزم هوه ماعاد يلعب كورة‬

Translation

1. Nori: and then.. the:: the:: doctor

2. checked him out
3. and he was fine
4. and he told him he was fine but he should not play soccer again

Another example representing the occurrence of intrasentential code switching is given

below, but the direction of the switching is English-Arabic. This time, Misho was telling a story

about a boy who was injured by swinging very high in a swing. Nori inserted an Arabic verb

within an English matrix.

Example 7

1. Misho: he needs to follow the rules on the (xxxx)

2. Nori: ‫ قصدك‬for the swing
3. Fadi: no, do not go so high
 37

Translation

1. Misho: he needs to follow the rules on the (xxxx)

2. Nori: you meant for the swing
3. Fadi: no, do not go so high

In summary, this study has observed the occurrence of two types of code switching,

intersentential and intrasentential, and the absence of the third type, tag-switching. More

interestingly, it was found that the participants’ intersentential code switching was far more

common than their intrasentential code switching.

Social Motivation of Code Switching

As introduced in Chapter 2, the Markedness Model explains the socio-psychological

motivations behind code switching in a multilingual community, which is based on the

association of particular code choices with Rights and Obligations (RO) sets during social

interactions. The Markedness Model differentiates between marked and unmarked code choices

for any given situation. For the current study, it can be postulated that the language of instruction

at school was the unmarked code choice because it was the expected code and the unmarked

index of the unmarked RO set for the given interaction. That is, the language of instruction is

based on the influence of societal norms that direct the speaker to choose the expected code as a

medium of interaction.

Myers-Scotton (1998) stated that the unmarked RO set in a spoken exchange is created

based on the salient situational features of the community in that exchange (p. 24). As a result,

switching the code in a given interaction could be seen as a marked code choice when it violates

the conversational expectations to establish a new unmarked RO set (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p.

111). However, switching the code in a given interaction could be considered an unmarked code

choice when “the speaker wishes to index two identities or attitudes toward the interaction (and
 38

therefore two rights and obligations sets) simultaneously” (p. 149). Such code switching occurs

when the speakers use two languages as a continuous pattern, switching back and forth, for

communicative intent as a general pattern of interaction without specific indexicality (p. 117).

Since the present study included two storytelling sessions, Arabic and English, below is a

presentation and discussion of some excerpts from both sessions to see how Myers-Scotton’s

(1993) Markedness Model addresses the social motivation of code switching from Arabic to

English and English to Arabic.

Application of the Markedness Model to the Arabic-English Code Switching

For the Arabic sessions of the current study, I argued that Arabic was the unmarked

code choice while English was the marked choice. This is because of the nature of the setting,

which required participants to tell a story using Arabic. Thus, Arabic was the expected code as

it was the language of the task. When a participant switched to English, he switched to the

unanticipated code. Switching to English in this study was considered a marked code choice

most of the time when the motivation behind switching was to increase or decrease social

distance or to show emotions through one’s speech (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 111). Examples 8–

14 illustrate how the English code was seen as marked. However, I have found some instances

where switching to English was still unmarked when the switch carried no indexicality or

change in the RO set. This can be seen in examples 15–17. Furthermore, any mid-utterance

(intrasentential) code switching was seen as unmarked since it took place within a single phrase

with no impact on the functions of the conversation or the RO set. This type of code switching

occurred multiple times as seen in examples 8, 9, and 13.

In Example 8, Mido told a story about a boy who received sports clothing as a gift. He

started the story in Arabic following the researcher’s instructions to relate the story in Arabic. He
 39

successfully completed the task and described the picture in Arabic (lines 1–5). At the end of his

story, he produced the last utterance in a high pitch to indicate that he had finished. There was a

pause for about two seconds. I tried to encourage the other children to engage in a discussion

about their friend’s story by asking (line 8) one of the children for his opinion about the story.

There was another pause of about two seconds during which time the boy was looking at the

picture and clearly thinking.

Example 8

1. Mido: ‫كان فيه ولد عنده جاله هديه من اصدقاهو‬

2. ‫بعدين فتحها و لقي فنيلة مكتوب واحد عليها‬
3. ‫و بعدين أخذها و لعب كورة بها‬
4. ‫و بعدين حارس و بعدين كل شوية يصد الكورة‬
5. ‫الحارس القوي‬ ‫ا‬::‫و بعدين في األخير قعد‬
6. [pause 2 sec]
7. R: [laugh]
8. ‫طيب انت وش رايك في هذي؟‬
9. [pause 2 sec]
10. Mido: you got any comments .. come on
11. don’t be scared
12. Ali: ‫ له أخذ رقم واحد‬::‫ هو‬... ‫اا اللحين‬
13. Mido: = ‫اا جات له هدية أا‬
14. Ali: ‫= إيه ليه ليه رقم واحد‬
15. Mido: (xxxxxxx) ‫دراني‬
16. Sari: [‫]عشان رقم واحد حق الحارسين‬
17. [‫]عشان رقم واحد حارس‬
18. Ali: ‫ليه ليه ليه‬
19. Sari: ‫عشان انت عشان انت عارفين انت ما تحب الكورة‬
20. Ali: ‫=اممم‬
21. Sari: basketball ‫هذا أنت على‬
22. [‫عشان انت (***) على كورة‬
23. Ali: [‫طيب اللحين‬
24. Sari: ..‫ خليني أعلمك‬number one ‫معناته حارس‬
25. (xxx) ‫رقم ثالثة واثنين و الهذا معناته‬
26. Ali: ‫= ليه اصدقاه اعطوه هديه‬
27. Sari: =‫عشان عشان هو يحب‬
28. Mido: (xxx) ‫عيد ميالده‬
 40

29. Ali: ‫عيد ميالده؟‬

30. Sari: ‫إيه عيد عيد‬
31. Ali: ‫عيد‬

Translation

1. Mido: there was a kid, and that kid got a present from his friends
2. then he opened it, and found a shirt with one written on it
3. then he wore it, and played soccer
4. so he was the goalkeeper, and was catching the ball every minute
5.
finally, he was the strong goalkeeper
6. [pause 2 sec]
7. R: [laugh]
8. what do you think about this?
9. [pause 2 sec]
10. Mido: you got any comments.. come on
11. don’t be scared
12. Ali: now why did he take number one
13. Mido: he got it as a present
14. Ali: so, why, why number one
15. Mido: (xxxxxxxxx) i don't know
16. Sari: [because number one is always for goalkeepers]
17. [because number one is a goalkeeper]
18. Ali: why? why? why?
19. Sari: because we know that you don't like soccer
20. Ali: umm =
21. Sari: = you like basketball
22. [Because you (***) on a ball
23. Ali: [so now
24. Sari: let me tell you.. number one means goalkeeper
25. number three and two and so it means (xxx)
26. Ali: why did his friends give him a present =
27. Sari: = because, because he likes..
28. Mido: his birthday (xxx)
29. Ali:
Eid, Eid
30. Sari: which Eid?
31. Ali: Eid!
 41

At this point, Mido spoke up again to encourage the others to participate. He switched to

English as seen in lines 10 and 11. He asked the others, “you got any comments, come on” and

then followed this with “don’t be scared” to encourage them to talk. Ali then started the

conversation by asking Mido about why the child in the picture had a number one. It seems that

this question was rather spontaneous because many pauses took place during Ali’s turn.

Interestingly, Ali chose to respond in Arabic to Mido’s English turn. Mido answered in Arabic

that it was a gift. Ali was not satisfied with Mido’s answer, so he asked again “why number

one”. He clearly meant to ask why the boy had received a shirt with number one on it. Also, Ali

produced his turn in Arabic (line 14). Mido was angry so he answered in a high pitch in Arabic

that he did not know. Then Sari engaged in the conversation and chose to defend his friend,

Mido. He answered in Arabic that number one was for the goalkeeper, which he repeated (lines

16 and 17).

Mido and Sari did not appear to understand Ali’s question; they thought that he was

saying something against them and that he had asked the question at random. Ali asked in Arabic

again “why? why? why?” Sari took the argument personally and started attacking Ali verbally,

claiming that Ali did not like soccer. Ali answered in Arabic that they already knew he did not

like soccer. Sari added that “you like basketball”. Ali was trying to interrupt (as in line 23), but

Sari did not let him talk. Sari resumed his turn by explaining the distribution of numbers in

soccer. During Sari’s turns, from lines 19–25, although he used Arabic turns, he inserted some

English words within clause boundaries in lines 21 and 24. As a result, Ali asked why the boy’s

friends had given him a gift (line 26). Sari tried to answer but failed (line 27). Mido answered the

question repeatedly to signal the end of the conversation. All the turns taken between the three

children from line 25 to the end were in Arabic.

 42

In this example, as stated previously, Arabic was the unmarked code choice because the

participants were following the instruction to talk about the picture in Arabic. Mido successfully

told the story in Arabic. However, when he wanted to encourage his peers to comment, he did so

in English. Here, Mido switched to the language, English, that he knew would decrease the

social distance with his peers as he was aware that this language was the one preferred by the

group members and because they were used to using it as a medium of instruction. Furthermore,

choosing English redefined the existing relationship roles, from directing the speech to the

researcher and peers to directing the speech solely to the peers by relying on the peer code. For

these reasons, switching from Arabic to English in a setting where the expected language was

Arabic, was considered marked. However, Ali responded to this English turn with Arabic, the

unmarked code choice. It seems that Ali understood that Mido was trying to encourage them to

interact so he engaged in the conversation by directing a question to Mido about his story.

Considering that Ali was the most fluent child in this group in both languages would explain why

he responded in Arabic instead of English. It appeared he was aware that the language of

instruction for this task was Arabic. Finally, the changing of the code in this example was

observed to fulfill the function changing the addressee.

The intrasentential code switching in lines 21 and 24 were unmarked because they were

used to compensate for the lack of Arabic linguistic ability in recalling a single word or phrase

with no obvious change in the RO or situation. According to Myers-Scotton (1993),

intrasentential code is one of the features of unmarked code switching.

Another example of switching to English to change the role relationship is given below.

Example 9 is a conversation that took place before the participant started telling the story. I gave

a picture to Fadi to talk about. Fadi was happy even before looking at the picture because he
 43

thought it was about soccer, which was his favorite topic. Nori, his classmate, commented in

Arabic, calling Fadi “the king of soccer” (line 3). Fadi responded with an unclear word and then

asked in Arabic at what point in the story he should begin telling it. There was a pause for about

two seconds, so I tried to keep the conversation going by answering his question, telling him that

he could start at any point. Nori repeated my statement to help his friend. Fadi was still confused

and needed time to think, so he switched to English in line 9. Nori again wanted to help his

friend, so he suggested that Fadi start from a place Nori pointed out to him. Nori used a mixed

utterance (line 10). Fadi responded in English about the order of the events in the picture.

Then a pause occurred for about two seconds. Misho added a comment, but it was not

apparent to me what it was when I did the transcription. Nori used Arabic to show Fadi the order.

Fadi felt comfortable with Nori’s suggestion and produced the agreement in English (line 15).

Misho was unsatisfied with Nori’s suggested order, so he suggested he start from a different

point. Fadi first asked Misho about the order and then agreed to follow it after he made a

statement in Arabic: “yeah, yeah, right”. All turns from line 16 until the end were produced in

Arabic. It should be mentioned that Fadi then told the entire story in Arabic.

Example 9

1. R: ‫هذا اللحين أنت تبدا‬

2. Fadi: ‫كورة‬
3. Nori: ‫أههه ملك الكورة‬
4. Fadi: (xxxxx)
5. ‫ايوه من فين أبد؟‬
6. pause 2 sec
7. R: ‫من أي مكان‬
8. Nori: ‫من أي محل‬
9. Fadi: wait =
10. Nori: =‫هنا‬.. ‫ تبدا من‬you can ‫ابدا‬
11. Fadi: first, second, third .. no wait
12. pause 2 sec
13. Misho: [(xxx)]
 44

14. Nori: ‫أول ثاني ثالث‬

15. Fadi: yeah
16. Misho: ‫أبدا من هنا‬
17. ‫أبدا من هنا‬
18. Fadi: ‫ليه ؟‬
19. Misho: ‫ بعدين ثاني بعدين ثالث‬..‫=أول‬
20. Fadi: = ‫إيوه ايوه صح‬
21. Nori: (xxx)

Translation

1. R: now, you start

2. Fadi: soccer
3. Nori: ah! the king of soccer!
4. Fadi: (xxxxx)
5. yeah, where should I start?
6. pause 2 sec
7. R: from any point
8. Nori: from any point!
9. Fadi: wait =
10. Nori: = start, you can start from here
11. Fadi: first, second, third .. no wait
12. pause 2 sec
13. Misho: [(xxx)]
14. Nori: first, second, third
15. Fadi: yeah
16. Misho: ah! start from here
17. start from here
18. Fadi: why?
19. Misho: first then second then third
20. Fadi: yeah right
21. Nori: (xxx)

In this example, Fadi switched to English, a peer code, as a sign of his bilingual identity

and to seek help from his friends who carried the same bilingual identity. Before this code

switch, he directed a question in Arabic asking for help, and he did not find the researcher’s

answer sufficient. As a result, he switched to English when he decided he needed his friends to

interact with him. This action meant that he switched to an English code in order to negotiate
 45

different RO sets. He also code switched to increase the social distance between speakers.

Therefore, English in this example was marked and used for the purpose of changing the role

relationship of the setting.

The following example explains how code switching could be used to forego the peer

role relationship to interact with the researcher instead. Example 10 is a conversation before the

last story in the Arabic sessions. This conversation was between the researcher, Fadi, and Nori. I

mentioned in Arabic that it would be the last story. Fadi in a high tone added “soccer” in Arabic,

which meant he was happy about the idea of the next picture. Nori understood that Fadi would

like to take his part and talk about this picture, so he interrupted to explain that he had not been

able to talk yet. Fadi yelled “soccer! soccer!” in Arabic. At the same time Nori spoke to him in

Arabic to persuade him that it was his (Nori’s) turn. Fadi promised that he knew this. At this

point, Nori switched to English, saying that he “never did it”. Fadi responded in Arabic to Nori’s

turn, explaining that he remembered it. Nori twice rejected Fadi’s attempts to tell the story.

Example 10

1. R: ‫الحيين آخر وحدة‬

2. Fadi: ‫كورة‬
3. Nori: [ ‫]ال ال أنا ما قد سويتها‬
4. Fadi: [‫]كورة كورة‬
5. Nori [ ‫]أنا ما قد سويتها‬
6. Fadi: ‫وهللا اتذكرها‬
7. Nori: (xxxxx) i never did it
8. Fadi: [‫]أتذكرها‬
9. Nori: [‫]ال ال‬
10. [‫]ال ال‬
11. R: ‫طيب خله يسويها‬

Translation

1. R: now, the last one

2. Fadi: soccer
 46

3. Nori: [no, no, i haven’t done it]

4. Fadi: [soccer, soccer]
5. Nori [no, no, i have not done it]
6. Fadi: i swear i remember it
7. Nori: (xxxxx) I never did it
8. Fadi: [i remember]
9. Nori: [no no]
10. [no no]
11. R: so let him do it

In this extract, Arabic was the language of the session, making it the unmarked code

choice, while switching to English was a marked choice. Nori code switched in an attempt to

forego peer interaction, and to interact with the researcher instead. He also did it to show anger

because his friend wanted to take Nori’s turn. It can be seen that Nori switching to English met

the conditions of the marked code choice. That is, English was used to achieve certain goals in

view costs and rewards. This code switch also occurred as an unexpected code to show Nori’s

irritation. In addition, Nori switched to English to establish a new RO set as unmarked for this

interaction. Here, making a marked code was attributed to the intent to change the addressee, to

invoke authority, and to show seriousness in his complaint.

Example 11 also illustrates how a participant code switched to interact with the

researcher. It was a conversation was taken by the researcher and one of the children, Sari. I

asked Sari about his opinion on one of the pictures. The questions were directed in Arabic since

it was the language of the session. Sari responded to the request in English and implied that he

might have talked about this picture before. Other children laughed because they knew he was

trying to avoid doing the task. Then, he showed his agreement in English as well but started

telling the story in Arabic as he was asked to do.

Example 11

1. R: ‫ وش رايك في هذي؟‬, ‫يزيد‬

 47

2. Sari: i think i maybe should redo this (xxxx)

3. [laugh]
4. okay
5. ‫كان فيه ولد شعره مرره جميل‬

Translation

1. R: Sari, what do you think about this?

2. Sari: i think i maybe should redo this (xxxx)
3. [laugh]
4. okay
5. there was a kid with very beautiful hair

In this example, Sari switched to English to leave the frame created by Arabic, the

unmarked code. It was anticipated that when the researcher asked for an opinion about the

picture, that Sari would respond by using the same code, Arabic. However, he chose English to

establish a new unmarked RO set for the current exchange as an attempt to decrease the social

distance with the researcher. For these reasons, switching from Arabic to English in this

conversation was marked.

Example 12 is an extract from Sari’s story about a boy buying some items from a grocery

store, which was followed by a conversation among the participants. After Sari finished telling

the story in Arabic, as he was asked, Ali commented, producing one word in Arabic and then

laughing loudly. Mido ironically directed a question in English to Ali about his laugh (line 10).

Ali ignored him and resumed talking in Arabic.

Example 12

1. Sari: ‫ه‬::‫وهو جا على راعي البقالة و قعد هو و قعد هو‬

2. ‫قعد يوريه االش(**) االغراض‬
3. ‫بعدين هوه يحطها على على مكانها‬
4. Ali: [laugh]
5. Sari: ‫بعدين هوه يروح‬
6. ‫بعدين هوه يروح من نيومكسيكو‬
7. [laugh]
 48

8. Ali: ‫اللحين‬
9. [laugh]
10. Mido: is that crying or laughing?
11. Ali: ‫ أنا عندي سؤال‬..‫أنا عندي‬
12. ‫اللحين ليه رجع األغراض‬

Translation

1. Sari: he came to the minimarket’s owner and started..

2. started showing the (**) things
3. then he put it on its place
4. Ali: [laugh]
5. Sari: then he went
6. then he went to New Mexico
7. [laugh]
8. Ali: now
9. [laugh]
10. Mido: is that crying or laughing?
11. Ali: i have, i have a question
12. now why did he return it?

In example 12, the conversation was mainly between two participants, Sari and Ali, and

was held in Arabic, the unmarked code choice. Mido was trying to get attention and be involved

in the interaction, so he chose English as seen in line 10. Furthermore, he chose English to show

solidarity with Sari by criticizing how Ali was laughing. However, Ali in return ignored Mido’s

attempt to engage in the interaction and he directed a question in Arabic to Sari. Here, when Ali

did not respond to Mido’s question and rather directed a question by using Arabic to Sari, he was

trying to maintain the same social distance with Sari before Mido interfered and also to remind

them of their bilingual identity. Therefore, English was a marked code due to the fact that Mido

inserted another “unexpected” code in an attempt to index another unmarked RO set and to

redefine the social distance between him and the other participants of the conversation. In this

example, switching to a marked code could be seen as a way to engage in the conversation as

well as a strategy to create alignment.

 49

In example 13, Fadi started telling a story in Arabic about a boy helping his mother take

care of his clothes. He had only just started when Nori interrupted him, asking in Arabic, “where

did the boy hang his clothes”. Fadi answered the question in Arabic, but Nori repeated his

question because it appeared he was looking for a particular answer. In line 7, Nori elaborated in

Arabic about his question: “outside where? outside in the street, or where?”. Fadi failed to

produce a fully Arabic answer to the question. As seen in line 8, Fadi inserted an English word

within an Arabic sentence. Nori immediately provided the equivalent Arabic word (line 9) for

the word that Fadi had failed to recall (“backyard”). He repeated that word in line 10. However,

Fadi showed agreement to Nori’s suggestion but still used the English word in line 11. He said,

“yes, in the backyard”. Nori again repeated the equivalent word in Arabic for the word

“backyard” in line 12. Fadi wanted to continue his story, so he just agreed with Nori’s suggestion

without producing that word in Arabic. Then there was a pause for about three seconds. Fadi

switched to English to ask for the Arabic translation for “ironing clothes”. Nori responded to him

in Arabic “do you mean this?” and he pointed to the picture. Fadi used Arabic to indicate the

point he wanted to make. Nori, as seen in line 19, was hesitating and there was a long pause of

about five seconds. Then Nori started a turn in English and finished it in Arabic in line 21. Fadi

resumed his story in Arabic but inserted an English sentence at the end (line 23).

Example 13

1. Fadi: ‫فيه ولد كان يغسل مالبسه‬

2. ‫ و علقها‬..‫ا برى‬::‫ حطه‬.. ‫بعدين‬
3. ... ‫بعدين‬
4. Nori: ‫=علقها وين ؟‬
5. Fadi: = ‫آآه برى‬
6. Nori: ‫برى وين؟‬
7. ‫برى في امشارع؟ برى وين؟‬
8. Fadi: ‫ باك يارد‬:::‫=برى في ال‬
9. Nori: = ‫في الحوش ياهوه‬
 50

10. ‫في الحوش ياهوه‬

11. Fadi: ‫إيه في الباك يارد‬
12. Nori: ‫]في الحوش ؟‬
13. Fadi: [ ‫ إيوه‬..‫بعدين بعدين‬
14. [pause 3 sec]
15. what is it called? =
16. Nori: = ‫ايش هذا‬
17. Fadi: ‫ألا هذا‬
18. [pause 2 sec]
19. Nori: ‫ه‬:::‫هو‬
20. [pause 5 sec]
21. Nori: you can call it ‫يكوي خالص‬
22. Fadi: ‫ طبقها‬...‫أأأ بعدين‬
23. .. ‫ بعدين‬to the clo::set

Translation

1. Fadi: there was a boy washing his clothes

2. then he put them outside and hung them
3. then
4. Nori: where did he hang them?
5. Fadi: ah, outside
6. Nori: where outside?
7. outside in the street, or where?
8. Fadi: outside in the backyard
9. Nori: in the yard, okay!
10. in the yard, okay!
11. Fadi: yes, in the backyard
12. Nori: the yard!
13. Fadi: yeah, then .. then ..
14. [pause 3 sec]
15. what is it called? =
16. Nori: = do you mean this?
17. Fadi: no, this
18. [pause 2 sec]
19. Nori: he ::h
20. [pause 5 sec]
21. Nori: you can call it iron clothes, okay!
22. Fadi: then he arranged them
23. then .. to the clo::set
 51

In this example, Arabic was the unmarked code as it was the language of the task. On the

other hand, switching to English, as in lines 15 and 21, could be explained by the marked code

choice maxim for the following reasons. First, Fadi switched to English in line 15 to ask for the

Arabic equivalent for a word, which meant he was moving from a narrator position to help

seeker position. Second, he chose English to show his seriousness about this request. And finally,

he switched to English to index the group’s dual identity. Furthermore, Nori responded to this

request in a mixed language sentence by starting in English and finishing in Arabic. Nori used

English because it was the language of the request but switched to Arabic to give Fadi the target

word in Arabic. Finally, the occurrence of code switching in this example served the function of

asking for the equivalent word in the other language.

Example 14 is a story told by Ali about a boy helping his mother clean his clothes. It was

followed by a conversation between Ali, Mido, and Sari about Ali’s story. The setting was

informal and Ali narrated his story in a relax tone. He used Arabic as he was asked to do. While

narrating this story, Ali added some imaginary events, such as saying that it was a girl instead of

a boy in the picture and that her name was “Cinderella”. Also, he went beyond the picture to

explain why she was cleaning her clothes and working at home. He referred to the harsh life she

had with her grandmother. Ali narrated all these events in Arabic from line 1 to 17.

After Ali finished his story, Sari made a negative comment in English about it. Ali

returned to the story and made a concluding statement in Arabic. After that, there was a pause for

about three seconds, so I directed a question in Arabic to the other children about the story (line

18). Sari again started attacking Ali’s story in a high tone in English. Here, Mido interacted with

the group but used an Arabic word first and then translated it into English. Then he made an

unclear comment. Mido and Sari switched to English to criticize Ali’s story as seen in lines 23–
 52

32. In lines 31 and 32, Mido asked Ali two questions about the story in English. Ali responded to

the second question first and his tone indicated seriousness, so Mido again paraphrased his first

question in line 35 and lightened his tone by saying “Mr. Boss” at the end. Ali did not answer the

question but rather directed a question to Mido, imitating Mido’s English accent. Sari and Mido

answered at the same time (lines 37 and 38)

Example 14

1. Ali: ‫كان فيه بنت اسمها سندريال‬

2. ‫سندريال أبوها مات‬
3. ::‫راحت تعيش مع‬
4. Sari: ‫جدتها‬
5. Ali: ‫جدتها‬
6. ..‫جدتها ما كانت تسوى‬
7. ‫ما كانت تحترمها‬
8. ‫كانت تقولها دايم يا سندريال غسلي المواعين‬
9. ‫يا سندريال تعالي اطبخي االكل‬
10. ‫يا سندريال ياهلل‬
11. ..‫فراحت سندريال‬
12. ‫تنظف المالبس‬
13. ‫و حطتها في حق الغسيل‬
14. ‫الماكينة حقت الغسيل‬
15. ‫و طلعتها في الشمس‬
16. ‫اا كوتها‬::‫و بعدين كوت‬
17. ‫كوت المالبس و سفطتها‬
18. Sari: bad story
19. Ali: ‫ا جدتها‬::‫وبعدين حطتها في الدوالب حق‬
20. [pause 2 sec]
21. R: ‫طيب وش رايكم في هذي‬
22. [laugh]
23. Sari: boring, boring
24. Mido: ‫شوية‬, wait
25. Mido: (xxxxxx)
26. Sari: everyone knows this is a dummy
27. [laugh]
28. Sari: because [xxxxxxx]
29. Mido: i got a comment
30. Sari: they [xxxxxx]
 53

31. Mido: i got a comment

32. R: he got a comment
33. Mido: i got two questions
34. the first one where did he get the name Cinderella?
35. the second one where that all grandees? =
36. Ali: = well, the old grandees did not show here
37. but [(xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)]
38. Mido: [oh, yeah, where] did you get the name SENDRILA Mr. Boss?
39. Ali: oh, Sari, why do you saying number one Mr. Boss?
40. Sari: [right there]
41. Mido: [right there]

Translation

1. Ali: there was a girl whose name was Cinderella

2. Cinderella's father died
3. she left to live with ::
4. Sari: her grandmother
5. Ali: her grandmother
6. her grandmother wasn’t good
7. wasn't respecting her
8. she was always saying: Cinderella, wash the clothes
9. Cinderella, cook the food
10. Cinderella, went
11. Cinderella to ..
12. washing the clothes
13. put it in the laundry
14. the washing machine
15. and took them outside under the sun
16. then she ironed it
17. ironed the clothes and arranged them
18. Sari: bad story
19. Ali: then she put it in the drawer of her :: grandmother
20. [pause 2 sec]
21. R: what do you think about this?
22. [laugh]
23. Sari: boring, boring
24. Mido: wait a little
25. Mido: (xxxxxx)
26. Sari: everyone knows this is a dummy
27. [laugh]
 54

28. Sari: because (xxxxxxx)

29. Mido: i got a comment
30. Sari: they (xxxxxx)
31. Mido: i got a comment
32. R: he got a comment
33. Mido: i got two questions
34. the first one where did he get the name Cinderella?
35. the second one where that all grandees? =
36. Ali: = well, the old grandees did not show here
37. but [(xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)]
38. Mido: [oh, Sari, where] did you get the name SENDRILA Mr. Boss?
39. Ali: oh, Sari, why do you saying number one Mr. Boss?
40. Sari: [right there]
41. Mido: [right there]

In the above example, as Ali started with the unmarked code, Arabic, Sari chose to switch

to English to increase the social distance with Ali. The same occurred with Mido, who chose to

challenge Ali by using English instead of Arabic. As a result, Ali responded to them in English,

which meant he accepted the change in the conversation pattern. It should be considered that Ali

started his story by using Arabic in a relax atmosphere, but when Sari and Mido switched to

English, the atmosphere had become more serious, and as a result the code changed. For these

reasons, English was a marked code in this conversation. Furthermore, it could be claimed that

the choice of codes in this example was to invoke authority, show seriousness, and deal with

social distance. Myers-Scotton (1993) has stated that the motivation for making a marked choice

is “to indicate a range of emotions from anger to affection and to negotiate outcomes ranging

from demonstrations of authority or of superior educational status to assertions of ethnic

identity” (p. 132).

In summary, choosing English in examples 8–14 was observed as a marked code in the

data because it met the conditions for marked code choice proposed by Myers-Scotton (1993) in

the Markedness Model framework. Myers-Scotton stated that marked code choice plays an
 55

important role in establishing a change to increase or decrease the social distance among the

participants (p. 132). One of the features of marked code choice is its use to show seriousness,

invoke authority, and to express personal feelings ranging from anger to affectation. It can

therefore be seen throughout the previous examples that English was inserted by the speakers as

a means of playing with social distance. Moreover, English as a marked code in the current study

helped redefine the relationship between the interlocutors. This goes hand-in-hand with Myers-

Scotton’s (2006a) claim that marked choice “always calls for a move from the expected social

relationship of the participants, a readjustment of the expected social distance which would hold

between them” (p. 216). Finally, the code switching in the previous examples served the

following functions: change the addressee, engage in interaction, make alignment, ask for

translation, expand, invoke authority, and finish the conversation.

The following examples illustrate how English was considered an unmarked code choice.

In Example 15, Sari was given a picture to talk about, and he initially produced unknown words,

causing all of the children to laugh. Ali laughed too and followed up with an Arabic utterance

that made all of them laugh again. Sari produced an English sentence (line 5), although the

preceding turn was in Arabic and the instructions were in Arabic as well. Ali again took an

Arabic turn, asking Sari about whether the person in the picture was a man or a woman. Sari

ignored him and started narrating the story in Arabic (lines 8–10).

Example 15

1. Sari: (xxxx)
2. [laugh]
3. Ali: (xxx) ‫حرمه‬
4. [laugh]
5. Sari: i love (xxx)
6. [laugh]
7. Ali: ‫هذي حرمة و ال رجال‬
 56

8. Sari: ‫ا أغراض‬::‫ يجيب‬:‫ أ‬..‫كان فيه رجال‬

9. ‫هذا ايش اسمها؟‬
10. ‫بقاله اوه‬
11. Ali: [laugh]
12. = ‫هو يبغى يشتريها ليه رجعها‬
13. Sari: = ‫مو رجع األغراض‬
14. products ‫هو قاعد يأديهم‬
15. Ali: ‫أمم‬
16. ‫ياهلل ياهلل‬
17. [laugh]

Translation

1. Sari: (xxxxx)
2. [laugh]
3. Ali: (xxx) woman
4. [laugh]
5. Sari: i love (xxx)
6. [laugh]
7. Ali: is this a man or woman?
8. Sari: there was a man .. bringing :: things
9. what is it called?
10. oh! minimarket
11. Ali: [laugh]
12. he wants to buy it, so why did he return it =
13. Sari: = he didn't give the things back
14. he was giving them products
15. Ali: um ..
16. go! go!
17. [laugh]

In example 15, Sari switched to English to express his personal feeling toward the

picture. This switch was preceded and followed by Arabic turns produced by Ali. The setting

was relaxed and informal while the children were laughing, joking, and talking to each other.

Although Sari’s first turn in this example was unclear, he produced this turn in English less

clearly. It appeared that he was not trying to change the role relationship because he was already

in a peer-role relationship. In other words, there was no change of RO set or situation because of
 57

Sari’s choosing another code. Therefore, the switch to English in line 5 could be seen as an

unmarked choice that occurred to express personal thoughts. As for the intrasentential code

switching in line 14, it could be explained as unmarked code switching that occurred to substitute

a word from the other language when the speaker was having difficulty recalling the target word,

a change that left no effect on the conversation pattern or even changed the code of the next

person to speak.

The use of English in example 15 can be explained based on the overall pattern of code

switching, not only in terms of language choice with particular utterances. If we look at the

overall pattern in this example, it can be argued that switching to English in both instances is an

unmarked choice because the norm was for the participants to switch back and forth. Moreover,

according to Myers-Scotton, one of the features of code switching as an unmarked code choice is

that it is not necessarily made with the purpose of indexicality; instead, in general it has a

communicative motivation (p. 117). It can be postulated that Sari switched to English more than

once during a single interaction to trigger the group’s dual identity as bilingual speakers. Fuller

(2012) stated that “switching back and forth is not significant in the details but in the larger

picture, and this is a picture of hybrid language and identities which challenge essentialist social

categories” (p. 77).

Example 16 is a short description by Misho of a picture of a boy who received a gift.

Misho briefly talked about the picture and inserted English sentences during his turn (lines 3 and

4). I provided the following turns to see if there was any impact from this code switching on the

other speakers and to determine the motivation behind it.

Example 16

1. Misho: ‫مه (**) أعطته هديه‬::‫كان فيه ولد أ‬

2. ‫عشان يسوي كل اللي طلبتها‬
 58

3. his favorite things ‫ الهدية ماهي‬... ‫و بعدين‬

4. it was a soccer and he got number one
5. ‫و بعدين راح يتدرب مع اصحابه‬
6. ‫و بعدين صار حريف‬
7. Nori: [‫]دوري دوري‬
8. Fadi: [‫]تذكرت اللي قالوا‬

Translation

1. Misho: there was a kid, his mother gave him a present

2. so that he would do everything she wanted
3. then … the present wasn't his favorite things
4. it was a soccer and he got number one
5. then he went to train with his friends
6. then he became professional
7. Nori: [my turn! my turn!]
8. Fadi: [i remembered what he said]

This example was provided because it was the shortest story. In terms of the Markedness

Model, Arabic was the unmarked code choice since the task required the participant to talk in

Arabic. Switching to English was also an unmarked choice because it did not trigger any change

in the situation, the RO set, or the addressee. All the turns produced after the story were in

Arabic. It appeared that the occurrence of code switching was for the purpose of filling a

linguistic gap with a language that the speaker was more proficient in.

Another example of code switching within the framework of telling a story is given in

Example 17. This time, Mido was telling a story about how fire fighters rescued a cat stuck in a

tree. He mainly told the story in Arabic, switching to English twice in lines 5 and 7. Also, his

story contained only one intrasentential code switch (line 6). After telling the story, there was a

conversation between Ali and Mido that revolved around Mido’s English sentence at the end of

his turn (“and got him down”). It seems that Ali saw this sentence as inappropriate because his

friend referred to the cat with the pronoun “him” not “it” so he repeated the same sentence with
 59

an ironic tone. Mido chose English to deal with Ali mocking him. He switched to English in line

11 to ask him to “wait” and switched to English to defend himself as in line 13 when he justified

himself, saying “it is a cat, never mind, it is a cat”. Again, Ali repeated Mido’s English sentence

as a strategy to make fun of him in front of others. Here, I interfered by adding a comment in

Arabic to see how they would respond to the Arabic turn. Mido responded to the Arabic turn by

using English as seen in line 18.

Example 17

1. Mido: ‫فيه بنت كان عندها كلب‬

2. R: ‫اهم‬
3. Mido: ‫ راحت عند شجرة‬..‫بعدين‬
4. ‫و طلع الكلب‬
5. and he got stuck
6. fire fighters ‫بعدين جاو‬
7. and got him down
8. [laugh]
9. Ali: got him down!
10. [laugh]
11. Mido: wait
12. [laugh]
13. Mido: it is a cat , never mind, it is a cat
14. [laugh]
15. Ali: it is a cat , never mind, it is a cat
16. [laugh]
17. R: ‫ يا سالم عليك‬،‫صح‬
18. Mido: that is all

Translation

1. Mido: there was a girl, and she had a dog

2. R: hmm
3. Mido: then she went to the tree
4. the dog climbed it
5. and he got stuck
6. then the firefighters came
7. and got him down
8. [laugh]
 60

9. Ali: got him down!

10. [laugh]
11. Mido: wait
12. [laugh]
13. Mido: it is a cat, never mind, it is a cat
14. [laugh]
15. Ali: it is a cat, never mind, it is a cat
16. [laugh]
17. R: right, you are great
18. Mido: that is all

The occurrence of code switching in this example could be classified as sequential

unmarked code switching since it met the conditions for this type of code switching. According

to Myers-Scotton (1993), sequential unmarked code-switching occurs when there is a change in

the situational factors during a conversation that lead the speaker to index the new unmarked RO

set. In this example, Mido switched to English first because it was his preferred language and to

cover his gap in Arabic. However, Ali appeared to think Mido had made a mistake in English,

which led Ali to mock him by repeating the same utterance. Mido chose English in his response

to Ali. Even when I made a comment in Arabic to return them to speaking in Arabic, Mido

continued using English. This code switch marked the seriousness of his desire to deal with the

situation. It could be said of this conversation that the unmarked code choice was English

because it was a way for Mido to avoid the embarrassment of making a mistake. More to the

point, in this example the unmarked RO set changed when the focus of the conversation was

altered. Thus, Mido switched to English to index the new unmarked RO set. Finally, it could be

said that code switching occurred 1) for the purpose of elaboration and explanation and 2) to

finish the conversation in a positive light.

In summary, switching to English in examples 15 to 17 was classified as an unmarked

code choice in the current study because the code switching occurred smoothly with no
 61

noticeable change in or negotiation of the current RO set in those interactions. Also, the speakers

chose the unmarked code to save the utterance function and to maintain the flow of their social

relationship. Daniel-Wayman (2016) stated that “speakers choose to speak in unmarked codes to

maintain the status quo within a conversation” (p. 5). Furthermore, it can be seen that these

instances of code switching occurred unconsciously, which goes hand-in-hand with Myers-

Scotton’s (1998) claim that the unmarked choice usually occurs unconsciously (p. 27).

Therefore, these findings were in line with what Myers-Scotton claimed about the unmarked

code choice in the Markedness Model. Finally, the code switching in these examples served

certain functions, such as expressing a personal thought and word-finding difficulty.

Application of the Markedness Model to the English-Arabic Code Switching

This section presents the occurrence of code switching from English to Arabic during the

English storytelling sessions. As the participants were asked to tell a story in English in certain

sessions, English was considered the unmarked code choice. In the current study, most instances

of code switching from English to Arabic came under the marked code choice. That is, these

instances of code switching occurred to deliver extra social meaning in addition to being

unexpected. Myers-Scotton (2006b) emphasized that choosing one code over another may

indicate other social interpretations rather than the social message that was carried by the code

itself. The following examples illustrate how Arabic was a marked code.

In example 18, Mido told a story about a boy who did not know how to ride a bike so his

father helped him to learn how to ride it. Mido directed a question to Ali after he had finished.

Ali responded to the question, but Mido was not satisfied with the answer, so Mido added a

comment criticizing Mido’s answer. Ali tried to provide another plausible answer, but Sari

interfered by asking another question. Sari’s question appeared to be intentionally ironic to make
 62

fun of Ali. Ali responded in English and then switched to Arabic (line 11). The example starts

with Mido’s question.

Example 18

1. Mido: why he does not know how to driving a bicycle?

2. Ali: we::l, he was going very fast downhill
3. and he took breaks and the bike (xxx)
4. and then he fall on his head
5. Mido: that’s stupid
6. Ali: [laugh] no no
7. the real answer to that is that he did the same thing as his bro, um
8. he went to the tree (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
9. Sari: okay, i got a question
10. why eyes like (xxxx)?
11. Ali: none of them ‫ال ال كان وجه زي كذا‬
12. Mido: now i see =
13. Ali: see. [laugh]

Translation

1. Mido: why he does not know how to driving a bicycle?

2. Ali: we::l, he was going very fast downhill
3. and he took breaks and the bike (xxx)
4. and then he fall on his head
5. Mido: that’s stupid
6. Ali: [laugh] no no
7. the real answer to that is that he did the same thing as his bro, um
8. he went to the tree (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
9. Sari: okay, i got a question
10. why eyes like (xxxx)?
11. Ali: none of them his face was like that
12. Mido: now i see =
13. Ali: see. [laugh]

In this example, it appears that Ali switched to English to decrease social distance since

Sari and Mido were trying to increase it. Moreover, Ali chose English to show seriousness

because Sari was trying to make fun of him. Therefore, the switch to Arabic was a change in the

RO set in the setting, meaning that Arabic in this example was a marked code. It can be said here
 63

that Ali switched to Arabic to show seriousness toward dealing with a situation in which his

friends were trying to make fun of him.

In example 19, Misho was telling a story about buying something. He added that the boy

bought the food from a restaurant, not from a grocery store as it appeared in the picture. Fadi was

the first to join the discussion and argued that a restaurant is a place to eat but not buy other

items. Fadi tried saying this twice (lines 7 and 10). Nori engaged in the conversation, first in

English but switched to Arabic (lines 12 and 13). Fadi responded to this turn in Arabic with the

comment “oh! smart” to make fun of their answers. The setting was relatively informal.

Example 19

1. Misho: picking food, like, stuff

2. he put the (xxxx) the car
3. and then he went away
4. and i think (xxxx)
5. i think he is gonna put it on his store
6. and like.. i think that
7. Fadi: a restaurant is a place where you can eat
8. not, not, buy stuff
9. Misho: but still the same
10. Fadi: a restaurant where you eat, like.. umm
11. Nori: no, no, ‫ال ال‬
12. ‫ يمكن تأخذ فيه أكل‬..‫الريستورنت‬
13. ‫ا‬::‫و تاكلونه مع‬
14. Fadi: ‫ا أذكياء‬::‫ي‬

Translation

15. Misho: picking food, like, stuff

1. he put the (xxxx) the car
2. and then he went away
3. and i think (xxxx)
4. i think he is gonna put it on his store
5. and like.. i think that
6. Fadi: a restaurant is a place where you can eat
7. not, not, buy stuff
 64

16. Misho: but still the same

8. Fadi: a restaurant where you eat, like.. umm
9. Nori: no, no, no, no
10. the restaurant.. maybe there is food
11. and you can take it with::
12. Fadi: oh! smart

The code switching in the above example in terms of the Markedness Model can be seen

as follows. English was the unmarked code choice as it was the expected code for the setting,

while the switch to Arabic was a marked code choice. This is because Nori switched to the

unexpected code, Arabic, to establish a new unmarked RO set in the interaction and to strengthen

solidarity with Misho. The code switching in this example appeared to be for the purpose of

expansion and to further clarify meaning to ensure that his point was understood. Finally, Arabic

as a marked code served the function of expansion and showing solidarity.

As apparent in the way Nori switched to English in the previous example, example 20

explains how Fadi and Nori engaged in an argument without code switching. This meant that

the code switching in the previous example was socially meaningful and had a purpose. Myers-

Scotton (1993) states that marked choice is unexpected and usually occurs to carry extra social

meaning.

Example 20

1. Fadi: you switched it up

2. R: it is fine
3. Fadi: i thought you said add
4. that redo the story
5. Nori: that is not redoing
6. R: it is fine
7. Nori: i did not redo none of these =
8. R: = it is fine
9. Nori: Look
 65

Overall, Arabic was considered the marked code during the English storytelling sessions.

This is because Arabic was not anticipated to be used by the children during the English

sessions. Furthermore, choosing Arabic helped in redefining the social distance between the

speakers. Arabic as a marked code was used to fulfill certain functions, such as expansion,

showing seriousness, and strengthening solidarity.

 66

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

This study observed the occurrence of code switching among six Arabic-English Saudi

bilingual children living in the United States at the time of the study. A mixed-methods research

design using quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques was applied in order to investigate

frequency, pattern, and the social motivation of code switching. Three research instruments were

used for the purpose of the study: a parental questionnaire, language portraits, and recorded

storytelling sessions.

The parental questionnaire and language portrait were used to gain a better understanding

of the participants’ linguistic background. The parental questionnaire provided information

regarding the participants’ linguistic history and their language use, whereas the language

portraits provided a clear picture of their language dominance and preference. Both of these

research instruments revealed that English was the participants’ dominant and preferred

language, except for one of the participants. This could be attributed to their exposure to English

at an early stage of their lives in addition to its being the language of instruction at their schools.

According to the information in the parental questionnaire, participants’ English language skills

were much better than their Arabic language skills.

The quantitative analysis for the data obtained during the storytelling activity showed

code switching to represent 24% of the collected data. The percentage of Arabic-English code

switching was 96%, while English-Arabic was only 4%. From another standpoint, the pure

English utterances represented 67%, whereas Arabic utterances were only 33% of the data.

Accordingly, English was the dominant language for the interactions and storytelling activity and

therefore was the unmarked code choice for the whole interaction, not only the English sessions.
 67

This finding supported Myers-Scotton’s (1993) frequency hypothesis, which uses a frequency

analysis to determine the degree of code markedness in a given interaction. It is worth

mentioning that the quantitative analysis was in line with the findings of the parental

questionnaire and language portraits. All of these research instrument results revealed English to

be the dominant language for this group of children.

The different types of code switching were analyzed in terms of the classification of code

switching proposed by Poplack (1980). The findings indicted the presence of intrasentential code

switching (code switching within clause boundaries) and intersentential code switching (code

switching between sentences). Furthermore, the results revealed a preference for intersentential

over intrasentential code switching as intersentential code switching occurred most of the time,

while intrasentential code switching occurred rarely. This finding can be explained by Poplack’s

claim that intrasentential code switching is more complex than other types and requires a deeper

knowledge of the syntactic structure of both languages. She added that intersentential code

switching is mostly produced by non-balanced bilinguals or among bilinguals who have one

language that is dominant over another. Poplack’s proposition was applicable to the findings of

the present study as it appeared that English was the participants’ dominant language. This

finding also went against some studies that claimed that intrasentential code switching is

produced more frequently than intrasentential code switching among bilingual children (e.g.,

Bader, 1998; Mathew, 2012; Arias & Lakshmanan, 2005; Takemoto, 2010).

The Markedness Model by Myers-Scotton (1993) was applied in order to determine the

speakers’ social motivation for employing code switching. Since the elicited stories were

produced in two different sessions, Arabic and English, I argued that the language of the session

was the unmarked code as it was the code expected to be used and was also the unmarked index
 68

of the unmarked RO set for the given interaction. Therefore, during the Arabic storytelling

sessions, Arabic was considered the unmarked code choice. The same would go for the English

sessions, in which English was considered the unmarked code choice. In addition, using a code

other than the unmarked code could be seen as a marked code when it violated the anticipated

norms, thus carrying extra social meaning and was chosen to establish a new unmarked RO set

(Myers-Scotton, 1993). This inserted code was seen as an unmarked choice if it was a pattern of

interaction with no apparent intention to change or affirm the existing RO set, such as was the

case with intrasentential code switching most of the time.

As for the Arabic storytelling sessions, Arabic was the expected code and therefore the

unmarked code choice. Most of the time, participants switched to English to change the RO set

or the role relationship for interaction. In addition, the application of this approach in the current

data revealed that the participants switched to a marked code to serve certain functions, such as

to change the addressee, engage in interaction, make alignment, ask for translation, expand,

invoke authority, and finish the conversation.

More interestingly, the analysis of the data according to the Markedness Model showed

some instances where switching to English fell under the unmarked choice maxim. That is, when

the switch to another code did not carry a particular social meaning, it would not indicate a

change in the RO set. This time, switching to English as the unmarked code choice was found to

fulfill the function of expressing personal thought and word-finding difficulty.

Regarding the English storytelling sessions, few instances of code switching were

observed to the unexpected code, Arabic, so it was considered a marked code for this context.

Here, Arabic as a marked code was chosen for the functions of expansion, showing seriousness,

and strengthening solidarity.

 69

Overall, this study contributes to the current research on the Markedness Model among

bilingual children. Evidence for Myers-Scotton’s (1993) marked and unmarked code switching

was observed in Arabic-English Saudi bilingual children. This study also agreed with the

findings of previous studies (e.g., Myers-Scotton, 2002; Bolonyai, 2005; Fuller, Elsman, & Self,

2007) arguing that bilingual children are rational and social actors who chose a given code

intentionally to achieve certain social goals in an interaction.

As with previous studies, this study had certain limitations, such as the presence of the

researcher during data collection, the small sample size of participants, and most importantly, the

small number of pictures used to elicit and generate conversations. Thus, further studies could

benefit from collecting data on linguistic performance during playtime or family conversations.

It is also recommended for future studies to have more participants and gather more data to

obtain more accurate results. Future studies on Saudi bilingual children are encouraged to

investigate the individual’s language choice during different settings and contexts.

In the end, it should be mentioned that this study’s results regarding frequency, social

motivation, and types of code switching cannot be generalized to all Saudi bilingual children, let

alone all bilingual children. This study was limited to a small number of Saudi bilingual children

who had spent several years in an English speaking country (the US) and were enrolled in both

an American public school and a Sunday Arabic-maintenance program. Social motivations,

types, and frequency of code switching among Arabic-English Saudi bilingual speakers may

vary according to the setting, context, types of bilingualism involved, or whether the speakers are

in a native English-speaking country or Saudi Arabia.

 70

REFERENCES

Abugharsa, A. (2013). Non-native language as the unmarked code in bilingual utterances of

Libyan children in USA. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED538532

Alenezi, F. H. (2006). Formal constraints on Arabic/English code-switching: A lexically-based

approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Linguistics, University of

Kansas.

Arias, R., & Lakshmanan, U. (2005). Code switching in a Spanish-English bilingual child: A

communication resource. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on

Bilingualism, Somerville, MA.

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1999). Transcript notation-Structures of social action: studies in

conversation analysis. Aphasiology, 13(4-5), 243-249.

Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. New York,

NY: Routledge.

Bader, Y. (1998). Lexical code-switching in the speech of an Arabic-English bilingual child.

Interface: Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 3–17.

Bader, Y., & Minnis, D. D. (2000). Morphological and syntactic code-switching in the speech of

an Arabic-English bilingual child. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and

Interlanguage Communication, 19(4), 383–404. doi:10.1515/mult.2000.19.4.383

Benson, E. J. (2001). The neglected early history of codeswitching research in the United

States. Language & Communication, 21(1), 23–36.

Bolonyai, A. (2005). ‘Who was the best?’: Power, knowledge and rationality in bilingual girls’

code choices. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(1), 3–27.

 71

Boztepe, E. (2005). Issues in code-switching: Competing theories and models. Teachers College,

Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 3(2).

Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorizing linguistic resources in heteroglossic

situations in South Africa. Language and Education, 24(4), 283–294.

Cantone, K. F. (2007). Code-switching in bilingual children. Dordrecht: Springer.

Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. London, UK: Edward

Arnold.

Daniel-Wayman, S. (2016). Spanish/English codeswitching in young adult novels. Retrieved

from http://triceratops.brynmawr.edu/dspace/handle/10066/17569

Dewaele, J. M. (2000). Trilingual first language acquisition: Exploration of a linguistic

“miracle”. La Chouette, 31, 41–45.

Di Sciullo, A. M., P. Muysken, & Singh, R. (1986). Government and code-mixing. Journal of

Linguistics, 22, 1–24.

Zeynep, Nadja_aaa. (2008, September 18). Tell or write a story. Retrieved from

http://www.eslprintables.com/reading_worksheets/tales_and_stories/tell_or_write_a_story_1

06723/

Farris, C. S. (1992). Chinese preschool codeswitching: Mandarin babytalk and the voice of

authority. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 13(1-2), 187–213.

Ferguson, C. (1966). Diglossia. In C. B. Paulston & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), Sociolingistics: The

essential readings (pp. 345–358). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Fishman, J. (1966). Language loyalty in the United States: The maintenance and perpetuation of

non-English mother tongues by American ethnic and religious groups. The Hague, The

Netherlands: Mouton.
 72

Fuller, J. M., Elsman, M., & Self, K. (2007). Addressing peers in a Spanish-English bilingual

classroom. IMPACT: Studies in Language and society, 22, 135–151.

Fuller, J. M. (2012). Bilingual pre-teens: Competing ideologies and multiple identities in the US

and Germany (Vol. 6). Routledge.

Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control

of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27(2), 210–223.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics. New York, NY: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Hammink, J. E., & McLaughlin, B. (2000). A comparison of the code switching behavior and

knowledge of adults and children. Retrieved from hamminkj.tripod.com/hamminkCS.pdf.

Jalil, S. (2009). Grammatical perspectives on code-switching. ReVEL, 7(13), 1–11.

Joshi, A. K. (1982). Processing of sentences with intra-sentential code-switching. In Proceedings

of the 9th conference on Computational linguistics, Volume 1 (pp. 145–150). Academia

Praha.

Lindholm, K. J., & Padilla, A. M. (1978). Language mixing in bilingual children. Journal of

Child Language, 5(2), 327–335.

Mathew, M. M. (2012). Patterns of code switching in children. Language in India, 12(11).

Meisel, J. M. (1994). Code-switching in young bilingual children. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 16(4), 413–439.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.
 73

Myers-Scotton, C. (1998). Codes and consequences: Choosing linguistic varieties. Oxford

University Press on Demand.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Frequency and intentionality in (un) marked choices in

codeswitching: “This is a 24-hour country”. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(2),

205–219.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2006a). Codeswitching with English: Types of switching, types of

communities. World Englishes: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, 4(3), 214–233.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2006b). Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Nakamura, M. (2005). Developing codeswitching patterns of a Japanese/English bilingual child.

In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 1679–1689).

Nguyen, T. (2014). Code switching: A sociolinguistic perspective. Anchor Academic Publishing.

Nilep, C. (2006). Code switching in sociocultural linguistics. Colorado Research in

Linguistics, 19(1), 1–22.

Offiong, O. A. (2005). Language interference: A case of Efik – English bilinguals. West African

Association of Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies, 2(1), 37–53.

Offiong, O. A., & Okon, B. A. (2013). Code Switching as a countenance of language

interference: The case of the Efik bilingual. International Journal of Asian Social

Science, 3(4), 899–912.

Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a

typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18(7/8), 581–618.

Poplack, S. (1981) Syntactic structure and social function of codeswitching. In R. Durán (Ed.),

Latino Language and Communicative Behavior (pp. 169–184). Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.
 74

Poplack, S. (2001). Code-switching (linguistic), in N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International

Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 2062–2065). Elsevier Science

Ltd.

Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Skiba, R. (1997). Code switching as a countenance of language interference. The Internet TESL

Journal, 3(10), 1–6.

Takemoto, M. (2010). Bilingual children’s codeswitching in storytelling activities in Japanese

and English. In M. T. Prior et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second

Language Research Forum (pp. 229–245). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings

Project.

Terveen, I. C. (2013). Frequency and function of codeswitching among German-English

bilingual preschool children in Cape Town (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Turtlediary.com. (n.d.). Picture sequence 12. Retrieved from http://www.turtlediary.com/

worksheet/picture-sequencing-boy-dressing-up.html

Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact, findings and problems. New York, NY: Linguistic

Circle of New York.

Woolard, K. (2005). Codeswitching. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic

anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

APPENDICES
 76

Appendix A

Parental Questionnaire

Dear parent,
Please fill out the following questionnaire. This questionnaire will help me know
about the language environment of your child. If you find any question to be
personal, you may choose not to answer it. Also, please note that you can contact me
at any time regarding any question.

1. General information about the child:

1.1. Child’s Name: _______________________

1.2. Date of Birth: _______________________

1.3. If place of birth is not country of residence, please provide date of arrival in country of

residence: _______________________

2. Child’s early language history:

2.1. How old was your child when he spoke his first word?

_______________________

2.2. How old was your child when he first put words together to make a short sentence?

_______________________ (Example: more water; more milk, etc.)

2.3. Before your child was three or four years old, were you ever concerned about his

language? Yes or No

_______________________

2.4. Has your child ever had any hearing problems or frequent ear infections? Yes or No

_______________________

2.5. What languages does your child speak now?

Arabic English Other (specify)

 77

2.6. Which language do you think your child feels the most at home with?

_______________________

2.7. Before your child was four years old, what percentage of the time was he exposed to

the following languages?

0 1 2 3 4 Score/4
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
(0%) (25%) (50%) (75%) (100%)
Arabic
English
Other
(specify )

2.8. At what age did his exposure to each language begin?

Age
Arabic
English
Other (specify )

2.9. In what context did this exposure take place? (check all appropriate cells)

Arabic English Other (specify)

a. Exchanges with mother

b. Exchanges with father
c. Exchanges with grandparents
d. Exchanges with babysitter / child minder
e. Exchanges with other adults (specify)
f. Exchanges with sibling
g. Nursery school / day care center /
kindergarten
 78

Total (1 point per cell)

Total by language /6 (or 7) /6 (or 7) /6 (or 7)

3. Current Skills

3.1. Compared to other children the same age, how Arabic English Other
do you think your child expresses himself in….?
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 = not very well / not as well as them; 1 = a
little less well / a few differences; 2 = (generally)
the same; 3 = very well, better
3.2. Do you think that your child speaks like a child
the same age who only speaks …..?

0 = not very well / not as well as them; 1 = a

little less well / a few differences; 2 = (generally)
the same; 3 = very well, better
3.3. Compared to other children the same age, do
you think your child has difficulties forming
correct sentences?

0 = not very well / not as well as them; 1 = a

little less well / a few differences; 2 = (generally)
the same; 3 = very well, better
3.4. Are you satisfied with your child’s ability to
express himself in …..? Always?

0 = not very well / not as well as them; 1 = a

little less well / a few differences; 2 = (generally)
the same; 3 = very well, better
3.5. Does your child feel frustrated when he can’t
communicate in …..?

0 = not very well / not as well as them; 1 = a

little less well / a few differences; 2 = (generally)
the same; 3 = very well, better
Total by language: /15 /15 /15
 79

4. Language used at home

4.1. With parents

Mother Child Father Child

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alway Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alwa
er y es (50%) y s er y es (50 y ys
(0%) (25% (75%) (100% (0%) (25% %) (75%) (100
) ) ) %)
Arabic
Englis
h
Other

4.2. Is there another adult who regularly takes care of your child? (grandparents, babysitter,
etc.) Yes or No

Grandparents Child Babysitter Child

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alway Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alwa
er y es (50%) y s er y es (50 y ys
(0%) (25% (75%) (100% (0%) (25% %) (75%) (100
) ) ) %)
Arabic
Englis
h
Other
 80

Other Adult Child Other Adult Child

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alway Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alwa
er y es (50%) y s er y es (50 y ys
(0%) (25% (75%) (100% (0%) (25% %) (75%) (100
) ) ) %)
Arabic
Englis
h
Other

4.3. For each child in the family, complete a separate table

Sibling 1 Child Sibling 2 Child

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alway Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alwa
er y es (50%) y s er y es (50 y ys
(0%) (25% (75%) (100% (0%) (25% %) (75%) (100
) ) ) %)
Arabic
Englis
h
Other

Sibling 3 Child Sibling 4 Child

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alway Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alwa
er y es (50%) y s er y es (50 y ys
(0%) (25% (75%) (100% (0%) (25% %) (75%) (100
) ) ) %)
Arabic
Englis
h
Other
 81

Sibling 5 Child Sibling 6 Child

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alway Nev Rarel Sometim Usuall Alwa
er y es (50%) y s er y es (50 y ys
(0%) (25% (75%) (100% (0%) (25% %) (75%) (100
) ) ) %)
Arabic
Englis
h
Other

5. Languages spoken outside the home

5.1. What language activities does your child do each week and in what languages?

Arabic English Other

Activities 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
Neve Ever Neve Ever Neve Every
At At At
r or y day r or y day r or day
least least least
almo almo almo
once a once a once a
st st st
week week week
never never never
a. Reading
(books,
comic
books,
newspapers
)
b. Television
/
movies /
cinema
c. Storytelling

Total by
language
 82

5.2. What language is spoken between your child and the friends he plays with regularly?

Child Friends
0 1 2 3 4
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
(0%) (25%) (50%) (75%) (100%)
Arabic
English
Other
(specify)

5.3. What language is spoken with friends of the family with whom you are in regular
contact?

Friends of the Family

0 1 2 3 4
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
(0%) (25%) (50%) (75%) (100%)
Arabic
English
Other
(specify)

6. Information about the mother and the father

6.1. Information about the father:

6.1.1. In which country were you born?_______________________

6.1.2. If you are currently working, what is the language you used at your place of

work? _______________________
 83

6.1.3. Education level:

Number of years Further information

Primary school Yes / No

Secondary school Yes / No
University Yes / No
Other professional training Yes / No

6.1.4. In your opinion, how do you speak the following languages?

0 1 2 3 4
Only a few Gets along, Basic Well Very well
words but with abilities
difficulty (gets along)
Arabic
English
Other

6.2. Information about the mother

6.2.1. In which country were you born?_______________________

6.2.2. If you are currently working, what is the language you used at your place of

work? _______________________

6.2.3. Education level:

Number of years Further information

Primary school Yes / No

Secondary school Yes / No
University Yes / No
Other professional training Yes / No
 84

6.2.4. In your opinion, how well do you speak the following languages?

0 1 2 3 4
Only a few Gets along, Basic Well Very well
words but with abilities
difficulty (gets along)
Arabic
English
Other
 85

Appendix B

Parental Consent Form

Dear Parent,
My name is Muhammad Alasmari, and I am a graduate student in the Linguistics Department at
SIUC. I have been granted approval by the Human Subjects Committee at SIUC to contact you
to request your permission regarding your child’s participation in a research study, which I am
conducting as part of my thesis requirement. The purpose of my study is to point out how
children who grow up in a bilingual environment make use of their two languages.
The children will be working with me at certain times and will create their language profile by
drawing a picture. Also, they will be asked to describe some pictures. They will be recorded with
a voice recorder and all data will be analyzed afterwards. I will work with the children in a group
and it will not take more than one hour a week over a six week period. If I detect any fatigue in
your child, I will stop our interaction. Your child will be allowed to ask for breaks or to ask for
our interaction to be terminated at any time, without providing reasons for the request.
I can assure you that all data will be kept confidential and will not be linked to the child’s
name. The people who will have access to the survey are: my thesis chair, Dr. Janet M. Fuller
(Research Advisor, Department of Anthropology) and myself. Our contact information is given
in the next paragraph.
Questions about this study can be directed to me, Muhammad Alasmari, address: 1019
Candletree Dr, Carbondale, IL, 62901; tel: (618) 303-5680; email: Asmari@siu.edu—or my
thesis chair, Dr. Janet M. Fuller, Research Advisor, Department of anthropology , Fanner Hall,
Room 4343, Carbondale, IL, 62901, office tel: (618) 453 5057, email: jmfuller@siu.edu.
Participation in this study is VOLUNTARY. If you agree to let your child participate in my
research project, please sign this form and return it to me.
Thank you for your collaboration and assistance in this research.
Signing this form indicates voluntary consent to participate in this study.

Signature _______________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This project has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subjects Committee.
Questions concerning your rights as a participant in this research may be addressed to the
Committee Chairperson, Office of Sponsored Projects Administration, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4709. Phone (618) 453-4533. E-mail: siuhsc@siu.edu
 86

Appendix C

Pictures

Picture 1: A boy doing laundry

Picture 2: Fire fighters rescuing a cat

Picture 3: A child receiving a gift and then playing with it

 87

Picture 4: A boy learning to ride a bike

Picture 5: A boy falling down while playing

 88

Picture 6: A boy shopping at a grocery store

 89

VITA

Graduate School
Southern Illinois University

Muhammad Ahmad Alasmari

Muh.asmari@gmail.com

King Khalid University

Bachelor of Arts in English Language, June 2011

Thesis Title:
SOCIAL MOTIVATION FOR CODE SWITCHING AMONG SAUDI ARABIC-
ENGLISH BILINGUAL CHILDREN

Major Professor: Dr. Janet M. Fuller