431626 JLR

Journal of Literacy Research

Code-Switching Patterns in 44(1) 45­–75

© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: http://www.
the Writing-Related Talk of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1086296X11431626
Young Emergent Bilinguals http://jlr.sagepub.com

Mileidis Gort1

Abstract
This qualitative study examined code-switching patterns in the writing-related talk
of 6 emergent Spanish-English bilingual first-grade children. Audio recordings, field
notes, and writing artifacts documenting participant activities and language use in
Spanish and English writing workshops were gathered over the course of 6 months
and analyzed for code-switching prevalence, form, content, and purpose in relation to
the writing process.The percentage distribution of oral code switching across the two
linguistic contexts suggests a sociolinguistic imbalance between the two languages,
wherein English played a prevalent role in the creation of Spanish texts, but Spanish
did not appear to have the same utility in the development of English texts. Four
general categories of code-switching functions emerged, indicating emergent bilingual
writers’ (a) evaluation and self-regulation skills, (b) sociolinguistic and sociocultural
competence, (c) metalinguistic insights, and (d) use of code switching to indicate a
shift in topic, person, or syntactic form. These findings intimate children’s capacity
to exploit their developing bilingual linguistic repertoire for a variety of academic
and social purposes and illuminate the potential of code switching as a cognitive and
linguistic resource in the process of writing.

Keywords
Bilingual, ESL, birth to age 8, writing, composition, qualitative (general), emergent
literacy

Code switching, or the alternation of two languages within a single clause, sentence,
or turn (Poplack, 1980), is a complex, rule-governed use of language that “offers a
1
University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Mileidis Gort, University of Miami, School of Education, 5202 University Dr., Merrick 222, Coral Gables,
FL 33146
Email: [email protected]
46 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

unique opportunity for studying some of the more complicated aspects of bilingual
speech” (Dearholt & Valdés-Fallis, 1978, p. 411). Although the phenomenon of oral
code switching has been investigated in terms of its linguistic and social dimensions
(e.g., Aguirre, 1985; Gumperz, 1977; Jacobson, 1990; Zentella, 1997), the use of code
switching in writing and writing-related academic contexts has received less attention
(Callahan, 2004). As code switching is considered an indicator of advanced bilingual
ability in adults (Poplack, 1980; Zentella, 1997), it has the potential to indicate devel-
opment of bilingual communicative competence in young children who are in the
process of acquiring two languages. However, there is little evidence regarding how
emergent bilingual children use code switching to support and extend their conversa-
tional and literacy goals in school.
This article presents findings from a qualitative study of code-switching patterns in
the writing-related talk of emergent Spanish-English bilingual first-grade children. I
use the term emergent bilinguals to describe children who potentially could develop
dual language and literacy abilities if supported in their immediate environments,
including home and school. The purpose of the study was to investigate children’s use
of code switching in academic activities, with a particular focus on writing. Specifically,
the study explored the role of code switching in the process of emergent bilingual writ-
ing through an examination of the incidence, form, content, and function (i.e., pur-
pose) of young children’s oral code switches in each language.1

Code Switching in Emergent Bilinguals

Code switching is the most distinctive behavior of bilingual speakers and an important
component of the communicative competence of proficient bilinguals. Contrary to
popular misconceptions based on deficit constructions of bilingual language practices,
and bilingualism more generally (MacSwan, 2000), research demonstrates that code
switching (a) is a sophisticated, rule-governed, and systematic communicative behav-
ior used by linguistically competent bilinguals to achieve a variety of communicative
goals (Gingràs, 1974; Pfaff, 1979; Timm, 1975); (b) is determined by a complex
network of sociolinguistic variables and constrained by syntactic and sociolinguistic
properties (Lipski, 1985; MacSwan, 2004; McClure, 1981; Poplack, 1980); and (c)
increases in prevalence and complexity with more advanced bilingual development
(Poplack, 1980; Toribio, 2001).
Research finds that young bilinguals can use their developing languages differen-
tially and appropriately with different conversation partners from the earliest stages
of productive language (Fantini, 1985; Genesee, 2001; Meisel, 2004; Paradis,
Nicoladis, & Genesee, 2000). At about 3 years of age, young bilinguals begin to
switch systematically between languages as a function of the participants, the setting,
the message, and to some extent, the topic of conversation (Genesee, 2000, 2002;
Genesee, Boivin, & Nicoladis, 1996). Young children demonstrate communicative
flexibility and adaptability by using code switching as a vehicle for their social play
Gort 47

(M. Reyes, 2001). Thus, as a natural and common discourse strategy, code switching
becomes an important aspect of bilingual and biliterate development (Genesee, 2002;
Gort, 2006; Kenner, 2004; Zentella, 1997).
With respect to linguistic form, switches can occur between utterances (intersen-
tential) or within utterances (intrasentential). Evidence from studies of emergent
Spanish-English bilinguals indicates that younger children show more code switch-
ing at the lexical level than older children (McClure, 1981; Zentella, 1997). Older
children, however, seem to manipulate their linguistic codes for a wider variety of
stylistic purposes and situational demands than younger children (Jørgensen, 1998; I.
Reyes, 2004; Zentella, 1997), such as using code switching to convey the intended
meaning more accurately (Halmari & Smith, 1994; Zentella, 1997). Research on the
classroom interactions of older, elementary-age, emergent bilinguals growing up in
multilingual contexts shows that language alternation is used to serve practical issues
related to the management and completion of assigned class activities and to suggest
a change of topic, of activity, or of discursive role (Unamuno, 2008). These findings
suggest that as emergent bilingual children get older, their exposure to different social
and linguistic experiences increases, and these experiences affect the development
and use of more sophisticated discourse strategies, including code switching. Code
switching, then, appears to be a complex skill that develops as part of emergent bilin-
guals’ communicative competence and increases as children gain more exposure to
and develop more advanced bilingual proficiency. However, there is little research-
based evidence about how young emergent bilinguals make use of code switching in
academic contexts to extend their linguistic and literate repertoires for greater prag-
matic and academic competence.

Theoretical Framework
The study is framed around two perspectives. The first is that in bilingual develop-
ment, the two languages are integrated, and each language serves as a resource for the
other. For bilinguals, linguistic experience is spread across two languages. Experience
is encoded in either of two languages and can be expressed in one or both languages;
information also can be represented by switching between the languages (Malakoff &
Hakuta, 1991). Hence, bilingual learners naturally explore the connections between
their two developing languages and practice code switching in their interactions with
other bilinguals as a normal part of membership in their linguistic communities
(Freeman, 2000; Gort, 2006, 2008; Hornberger, 2005; Martinez, 2010; Pérez, 2004).
The second perspective highlights the role of talk and social interaction in the devel-
opment of writing. Young children’s writing is often accompanied by talk and elabo-
rates the meaning in early written language. Children generate their ideas and sustain
their written voices through self-talk and interactions with others (Dyson, 2000).
Thus, the prevalence of talk in, around, and about early writing provides a window
into emergent writers’ language and thought processing.
48 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

Dichotomous Versus Unitary Views of Bilingualism

Although empirical evidence shows fundamental differences in the cognitive pro-
cesses, language use, and metalinguistic awareness of monolinguals and bilinguals
(Cook, 1991; Grosjean, 1982; Valdés, 2001), schools have historically promoted a
monolingual view of bilingualism (i.e., bilinguals are defined as possessing nativelike
competencies in each language; Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005). In reality, most
bilinguals use one language more frequently for certain purposes and, thus, are likely
to be differentially exposed to and develop distinct proficiency levels in certain
domains in each of their two languages (Baker, 2006; Cummins, 1981; Lambert &
Tucker, 1972; Romaine, 1989).
Strict language separation policies (i.e., sustained periods of monolingual
instruction in each language) in many dual-language immersion programs suggest
an ideological assumption that monolingual language use (in each language) by
teachers and students fosters parallel proficiency in two languages in students. The
language separation argument, based on language compartmentalization, implies
that the goal of (second) language teaching and learning is coordinate bilingual-
ism, in which the two languages form distinct systems in the mind (Weinreich,
1953, as cited in Cook, 2001). Dual-language education researchers thus argue
that a language separation approach (a) provides learners the opportunity to pro-
duce extended discourse in which they must make their language coherent, accu-
rate, and sociolinguistically appropriate (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Swain, 1985);
(b) gives students the opportunity to more fully develop two languages (Howard,
Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007); and (c) helps combat
“the natural tendency of minority language speakers to shift to the majority lan-
guage” (Cummins & Swain, 1986, p. 108). Consequently, programs and teachers
adopt the stance that (second) language learning should happen only through the
target language; from this perspective, the nontarget language is not considered a
resource in the acquisition process.
The coordinate view of bilingualism contrasts with that of compound bilingualism,
in which the two languages form a single composite system. In this integrated view,
each language plays an integral role in the bilingual developmental process; that is, the
two languages are interwoven in the language user’s mind, and each language supports
the other in further language development and use. Thus, two contrasting theories
about bilingualism and the subsequent role of each language in its development
emerge: (a) Bilingual development results from the addition of two separate compe-
tencies, or (b) bilingualism is understood as the development of a composite repertoire
wherein the languages in contact interact and combine (Grosjean, 1982). In practice,
perceiving bilingualism from a dichotomous (i.e., parallel monolingual) versus a uni-
tary (i.e., bilingual) view leads to very distinct educational choices with regard to
program structure and language allocation (e.g., language separation versus integrated
language use or alternation). However, Cummins and others argue that the lack
of research support for the monolingual instructional orientation guiding many
Gort 49

dual-language immersion policies and programs raises questions about its effective-
ness for bilingual development. Cummins (2005) asserts in this regard that

while extensive use of the target language within foreign/second language and
bilingual/immersion programs is clearly a useful and important instructional
strategy, it should not be implemented in a rigid or exclusionary manner. . . .
Students’ [native language] is a powerful resource for learning and bilingual
instructional strategies can usefully complement monolingual strategies to pro-
mote more cognitively engaged learning. (p. 16)

The Role of Oral Language and Interaction in Bilingual Writing

Development
Oral language plays an essential supportive role in literacy learning (Clay, 1991;
Dyson, 1983; Pinnel, 1980). Emergent readers and writers use their knowledge of
language and its functions and structures as they engage with and learn about written
language (Goodman, 1992). Early writing is surrounded by talk: Young children talk
to themselves and to others as they engage in literate activities, using oral language to
negotiate emerging understandings about written language (Dyson, 1990), to regulate
and orchestrate the complex processes involved in writing (Parr, Jesson, &
McNaughton, 2009), and to externalize their language, literacy, and thinking pro-
cesses (Dahl, 1993). Writing-related talk also serves an executive function through
which children can formulate a plan for what they might write next, rehearse ideas for
writing (Clay, 1975), and evaluate what they have written (Dyson, 2006).
Children’s talk during composing further reveals and sustains the social relation-
ships within which writing takes shape (Dyson, 2000). Britton’s (1970) metaphor of
classroom writing occurring “afloat upon a sea of talk” (p. 29) suggests that talk links
the teacher(s), young writers, and their writing, thereby supporting and sustaining
writing and enabling connections. Interaction among participants can contribute sig-
nificantly to the process of learning to write as it occurs through participation in joint
activity and supports the social distribution and appropriation of literacy knowledge
(Larson, 1995). For example, writing-related interactions may help students become
critical readers who monitor their own strategies during writing (Calkins, 1986;
McCarthey, 1994). Thus, writing-related talk is a means of communicating ideas, an
important source of language and literacy learning, and an enactment of cognitive
activity (Swain & Lapkin, 1998).
Similarly, language acquisition research has demonstrated that languages are
developed through social interactions that provide access to comprehensible input as
well as opportunities to produce comprehensible output and negotiate meanings
(Krashen, 1982; Long, 1985; Pica, 1994; Swain, 1985). Within a social interactionist
perspective to language and literacy learning and use, language and social interac-
tion are tightly entwined, and the acquisition process is deeply embedded in the
interactional context from which it stems. Related research in bilingual and
50 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

biliteracy development highlights the importance of social interaction for learning,

the cross-linguistic transfer of skills, and the embedded nature of language and lit-
eracy in children’s immediate and broader contexts (Gort, 2006; Manyak, 2001;
Pérez, 2004). Interactional spaces where children can freely and purposefully use
their two languages, and where they can observe the use of both languages being
modeled by other speakers, are thought to support bilingual language and literacy
skills (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005). In these spaces, code switching can be
interpreted as a strategy for the appropriation of a new language, a communicative
strategy, and evidence of the development of multilingual competence.
The current investigation is thus premised on the assumption that switching between
languages can serve as a resource for learning languages, participating in classrooms
interactions among speakers with varying bilingual proficiencies and experiences, and
engaging in academic and social activities. Through this framing, I examine the ways
in which young Spanish-English emergent bilinguals draw on each language to accom-
plish their conversational and literacy goals within a dual-language immersion pro-
gram. Specifically, the study addresses the following research questions:

1. What are the code-switching patterns in the interactions and self-talk of

emergent bilingual first-grade children as they engage with writing in paral-
lel English and Spanish writing workshops?
2. What functions do code switching serve in emergent bilinguals’ writing
process?

Method
Description of the Study

The school. The study was conducted in an urban, culturally and linguistically
diverse public elementary school in the northeastern United States. The school served
approximately 300 students in kindergarten through fifth grade, including the highest
percentage of English learners in the district (42%). The ethnic makeup of the student
body was 53% Latino, 45% European American, and 2% African American. Forty-one
percent of students qualified for free or reduced lunch.
The two-way immersion (TWI) program. The school housed a TWI program, a type of
dual-language immersion education. The TWI model aims for a balanced mixture of
English-speaking and native-speaking children of another language (in this case,
Spanish). The presence of native speakers of both languages provides opportunities
for all students to communicate with native-speaker peers of the two target languages
(Christian, 1996). The focal program differed from the two major variants of the TWI
model with regard to the distribution of languages, as children in this program were
initially instructed in their (respective) native or dominant language (L1) for approxi-
mately 80% of the time and in the second language (L2) for the remainder of the time.2
Children’s language proficiencies and home language practices at program entry
Gort 51

determined program designation as either “Spanish dominant” or “English dominant.”

As children progressed through the program, the amount of instruction in the L2
increased until delivery of instruction in the two languages attained parity by about
fourth grade and remained equally distributed until Grade 5, the final year in the pro-
gram. Students in the TWI program reflected the district’s cultural, linguistic, and
socioeconomic diversity.
There were two classrooms per grade level, an English classroom and a Spanish
classroom, between which students moved seamlessly in different group configura-
tions throughout the day. The language of instruction in each classroom aligned with
the classroom’s official language designation (i.e., instruction in the Spanish class-
rooms was conducted all in Spanish). At times, groups consisted of all Spanish-
dominant students or English-dominant students (e.g., the Spanish speakers were
grouped together for English as a Second Language [ESL] class, while the English
speakers participated together in Spanish as a Second Language [SSL] class). At other
times, students of both language backgrounds were integrated so that approximately
half of the class was immersed in the L2 and the other half received instruction in their
L1, giving rise to the program descriptor term two-way or dual immersion. The study
was situated in the program’s first-grade classrooms.
The writing workshop. Writing Workshop (WW) was the schoolwide approach to
writing instruction. This process-based approach stresses the notion of writing as a craft
and engages writers in a number of individual and interactive stages to develop ideas
and express them in writing (Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1983). In the first grade, WW
originally was designed as a 45- to 60-minute period of the L1 language arts block dur-
ing which students planned, drafted, revised, and published stories on self-selected top-
ics. Children’s stories typically involved a personal narrative or recount of an event they
had experienced and wanted to share with others. WW began with a class meeting
during which the teacher offered a minilesson on an aspect of writing relating to stu-
dents’ needs and/or interests. Students then reviewed their work from the previous WW
session and discussed with a peer or the teacher their plans for proceeding that day. The
students dispersed to the classrooms’ round worktables in groups of 2 to 3 to write,
discuss, and illustrate their drafts, or to the carpet area in pairs to brainstorm ideas for a
new story with a peer. Students who had prepared a draft for publication by engaging in
peer and teacher-supported revision sat in the classroom’s computer area to type their
finished stories. The teachers roamed the classroom as students worked, conferring
with individuals, pairs, or small groups of students in support of their progress. During
the last 5 to 10 minutes of WW, the group gathered once again in the carpet area to listen
to a read-aloud of a published piece or to provide feedback for a story in progress.
Students participated in WW on alternating days as part of their L1 literacy block.
The physical classroom in which the activity occurred (i.e., Spanish or English room)
determined the language of instruction and, therefore, the target language of children’s
writing products and talk. Although teachers consistently and systematically modeled
the target language in their instruction and interactions with children, and encouraged
the children to do the same, the children’s language use was much more flexible. WW
52 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

Table 1. Participant Information

Native language(s) Dominant language Home language(s)

(Initial languages (Language of greater (Languages used
Name Age learned at home) proficiency and instruction) at home)
Lucy 6:3 Spanish Spanish Spanish
Katherine 6:8 Spanish Spanish Spanish
Brian 7:0 Spanish Spanish Spanish
Barbara 6:5 Spanish English Spanish
José 6:11 English/Spanish English English/Spanish
Steven 7:1 English/Spanish English English/Spanish
Note: Ages presented in years:months. Home languages reported by primary caregivers at program entry.

was a highly interactive and collaborative setting where student-to-student, student-to-

teacher, and student self-talk often accompanied writing. Beginning with the second
half of first grade, WW became an integrated class when students who exhibited
grade-level literacy skills in their dominant language were offered the opportunity to
also participate in WW in their L2.3

Participants
Six emergent bilinguals representing varied oral language and literacy abilities in
Spanish and English served as focal participants for the study. The children included
three native Spanish speakers who demonstrated early intermediate English skills
(Lucy, Brian, and Katherine) and two native bilinguals and a native Spanish speaker
who demonstrated stronger skills in English (Steven, José, and Barbara, respectively).
On the basis of program criteria, Lucy, Brian, and Katherine were considered to be
Spanish dominant at program entry, whereas Steven, José, and Barbara were classified
as English dominant.4 Steven and Barbara attended kindergarten in an English-only
Head Start program prior to joining the TWI program at the beginning of first grade
as English-dominant speakers. The other participants had been enrolled in the TWI
program since kindergarten. All participants were of Dominican American heritage.
Table 1 provides participants’ ages at the beginning of the study as well as their native,
dominant, and home languages.

Data Collection
The data analyzed here were extracted from a corpus gathered as part of a larger eth-
nographic study looking at the development of emergent biliteracy in first-grade
children in a Spanish-English TWI program (see Gort, 2006). During the second half
of the academic year (January to June), two research assistants and I conducted 126
Gort 53

Table 2. Distribution of Classroom Observations and Writing Artifacts Across Participants

Number of writing
Classroom observations artifacts collected

Participant name Spanish WW English WW Spanish English

Lucy 17 18 22 23
Katherine 18 12 23 16
Brian 12 15 19 21
Barbara 12 18 17 21
José 15 12 22 18
Steven 18 15 24 21

Note: Writing artifacts included story planning sheets, drafts of stories in progress, spelling sheets, and final
drafts. WW = Writing Workshop.

classroom observations in the two first-grade classrooms during WW.5 We shadowed

focal students as they developed stories and participated in regularly occurring WW
activities, systematically collecting data three times per week for each focal child dur-
ing the data collection period: either twice in Spanish WW and once in English WW
or vice versa. During 45- to 60-minute classroom visits, we documented participant
activities and language use through detailed field notes and audio recordings of stu-
dent self-talk and interactions with peers and teachers. We photocopied participant
writing artifacts across all stages of the writing process, including all drafts and
related documents. The complete data set included field notes and corresponding
audiotapes from 64 Spanish WW and 62 English WW classroom observations, and
247 writing artifacts. Table 2 specifies the distribution of classroom observations and
writing artifacts across participants.

Data Preparation and Analysis

Throughout the data collection period, two research assistants and I transcribed all
classroom audiotapes verbatim in preparation for analysis. Field notes were integrated
into the transcripts to contextualize the oral language data. A general review of the
data suggested a considerable amount of redundant information with regard to chil-
dren’s code-switching practices across the two WW contexts. Therefore, on the basis
of criteria that sought to represent fairly equal amounts of data for each participant,
including transcripts and related data sources that depicted various stages of the writ-
ing process, a subset of data was selected for in-depth analyses that included all data
sources from two WW sessions in each language for each month of the data collection
period per participant. This resulted in a corpus of 24 transcripts and writing artifacts
(e.g., drafts at various stages, writing plans, spelling sheets) per participant.
54 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

Analysis of the transcripts and writing artifacts was qualitative and guided by the
principle of triangulation. The main unit of analysis was the conversational turn,
defined by Ellis (1994) as the point at which a speaker stops talking or is interrupted
by another speaker’s turn. Oral code switches were identified and analyzed with regard
to form, content, and function in relation to children’s writing process. To determine
the extent of use and type of oral code switches by context, the total number of turns
involving code switching between and within turns was counted separately for each
classroom context and student language group. The following categories were used to
identify and code each child’s turn involving code switching with regard to form, with
examples to illustrate each category (code switch bolded for emphasis; translation to
English included in parentheses):

•• Intersentential code switch (Spanish only): All phrases in one turn were
Spanish (in English context).

Example (Brian, English WW): “Yo no sé qué dice. Yo lo traté dos veces.” (I
don’t know what it says. I tried it two times.)

•• Intersentential code switch (English only): All phrases in one turn were
English (in Spanish context).

Example (Barbara, Spanish WW): “It’s my last one!”

•• Intrasentential code switch: Both languages were used within the same turn
(in either Spanish or English context).

Example 1 (Steven, Spanish WW): “Ahora me faltan los trés más and I am
finished!” (Now I am missing three more and I am finished!)

Example 2 (Katherine, English WW): “I only need two more pages and I can
ilustrar and publicar, verdad?” (I only need two more pages and I can illus-
trate and publish, right?)

The 217 turns meeting criteria for selection (i.e., representing an intra- or intersen-
tential code switch) were further analyzed for content as well as communicative and/
or literacy-related code-switching functions. The procedure was both deductive and
inductive; there was a continual interplay between beginning with code-switching
typologies from existing frameworks (e.g., Becker, 1997; McClure, 1981; Montes-
Alcala, 2001; I. Reyes, 2004; Zentella, 1997) and checking those against the data,
and starting with the data and moving toward grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). Combining new data-based and existing typologies facilitated identification
of the categories most relevant to emergent bilingual writers’ code-switching prac-
tices. These categories were examined in relation to contextual information in
Gort 55

children’s talk, writing behaviors, and writing products. Triangulation of data from
the multiple sources provided a comprehensive view of emergent bilingual oral
code-switching behaviors, verified themes and patterns, and cross-validated regu-
larities in the data.
In an attempt to present the most authentic interpretation of the setting, the class-
room observations, and students’ oral language and written products, I shared the WW
transcripts, corresponding writing products, and emerging themes and summaries of
findings with the classroom teachers and other members of the research team through-
out the data collection period.6 These were approved with minor revisions.

Findings
The social nature of WW and the collaborative structures set up by the TWI teachers
encouraged children to seek each other’s advice and support in the process of writing.
Children engaged in lots of talk during writing—with peers, teachers, and themselves—
to plan and monitor their work as well as to sustain their composing efforts. Emergent
bilingual writers often alternated between their two languages in their writing-related
talk, demonstrating the facility with which bilinguals can express their developing lin-
guistic, metalinguistic, and metacognitive skills across two languages. Students’ talk
also exemplified their ability to engage with academic tasks using their developing
bilingual skills.

Incidence of Code Switching in Spanish and English WW

Students used more code switching in the Spanish classroom (185/217, or 85% of
total code switches) than in the English one (32/217, or 15% of total code switches).
With regard to form, students used more intersentential (English-only) code switches
in the Spanish context (102/217, or 47% of total code switches) than intrasentential
(mixed-language) ones (83/217, or 38% of total code switches). The reverse was true
in the English context, where only 4 out of 217, or 2%, of code switches were Spanish
only, whereas 28 out of 217, or 13%, were mixed language. The percentage distribu-
tion of student talk that included code switching across the two WW contexts is pre-
sented in Figure 1.
Spanish-dominant students produced substantially more than half of the total num-
ber of code switches across the two WW contexts (134/217, or 62%). Fifty percent
(109/217) of all code switches were produced by these students in the Spanish WW
context, revealing a strong English (L2) influence on their L1 writing process. These
writers also integrated their first language while composing in the English classroom,
albeit to a lesser degree (25/217, or 12%, of total code switches). English-dominant
students’ use of code switching reveals a different pattern, however. Although these
students also drew from their developing bilingualism to support their writing process,
their use of code switching mostly occurred in the Spanish WW context. Specifically,
English-dominant emergent bilinguals produced 38% (82/217) of total code switches,
56 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

English WW: English WW:

Spanish-only CS Mixed language
2% CS
13%
Spanish
WW: Mixed
language CS
38%

Spanish WW:
English-only CS
47%

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of form of oral code switches (CS) by writing workshop
(WW) context
Note: Code switching was more prevalent during Spanish WW, where students used both
intrasentential (i.e., within the turn) and intersentential (i.e., between turns; English only) forms.
In the English classroom, students code switched much less frequently; intersentential CS (i.e.,
between turns; Spanish only) were rare in this context.

but the majority of these involved using the L1 in the process of writing in the L2.
Only 3% of total code switches represented these writers’ use of Spanish (L2) in the
process of writing in English (L1). The percentage distribution of participants’ use of
oral code switching across the two WW contexts suggests a sociolinguistic imbalance
between the two languages, wherein English plays a significant role in the creation of
Spanish texts for both English- and Spanish-dominant emergent bilinguals, but
Spanish does not appear to have the same utility in the creation of English texts for
either group of children (see Figure 2).

Functions of Code Switching in Emergent Bilingual Children’s

Composing Process
The analysis of oral code-switching patterns, as evidenced in children’s talk during the
composing process, revealed that the use of code switching fulfills a variety of social,
linguistic, and academic functions and that some instances of code switching accom-
plish more than a single purpose. Four general categories of code switching functions
emerged, indicating emergent bilingual writers’ (a) evaluation and self-regulation skills,
(b) sociolinguistic or sociocultural competence, (c) metalinguistic insights, and (d) use
of code switching to indicate a shift in topic, person, or syntactic form. These catego-
ries are explained below (see the appendix for a detailed listing of code-switching
Gort 57

90
80
70 35
60
English-speakers
50
Spanish-speakers
40
30
50
20
3
10
12
0
Spanish WW English WW

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of use of code switching by student language group, Writing
Workshop (WW) context

categories, definitions, and examples from the transcripts). Table 3 reports frequency
and percentage data for each category across participants and WW contexts.
The majority of emergent bilinguals’ oral code switching (62%) involved a self-
reflection, an evaluation, or regulation of children’s writing process or resulting prod-
ucts, revealing children’s writing-related cognitive processes. Code-switching patterns
evidencing children’s developing sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence (25%)
and children’s metalinguistic awareness (i.e., learner interest in and knowledge about
the relationship between their two languages; 9%) were the next most prevalent.
Together, these three categories accounted for 96% of oral code-switching uses across
the two WW contexts. The remaining switches involved a change in code when learn-
ers shifted topic, referred to specific persons, or integrated questions within statements
(4%). The percentage distribution of patterns of code-switching functions across WW
contexts is presented in Figure 3.
The sections that follow report the general character and trends within each broad
category. No effort has been made to list all of the switches included in any grouping.
Instead, representative examples are used to capture the essence of emergent bilin-
guals’ use of code switching in a given category. In all samples, code switches are in
boldface type, field notes are presented in brackets, and English translations are in
parentheses.
Metacognitive functions of code switching: Reflecting on, evaluating, and regulating writ-
ing in two languages. In support of their own and their peers’ composing efforts, emer-
gent bilinguals drew on their dual-language repertoire most often for the purposes of
reflecting on, evaluating, and/or regulating their own and their peers’ writing. In this
section, I present an extended excerpt showcasing Katherine, a Spanish-dominant stu-
dent and one of the most talkative participants, in the process of drafting a story that
58 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

Table 3. Distribution of Code-Switching (CS) Functions Across Participants and Writing

Workshop (WW) Contexts

Distribution within WW
Frequency context (%)
Pattern/Category
of CS function Spanish WW English WW Spanish WW English WW
Metacognitive statements (140/225; 62% total CS)
Lucy 13 1 7 3
Katherine 45 9 24 26
Brian 6 0 3 0
Barbara 45 0 24 0
José 6 0 3 0
Steven 14 1 7 3
Total 129 11 68 32
Sociolinguistic/sociocultural patterns (56/225; 25% total CS)
Lucy 4 5 2 14
Katherine 24 6 13 17
Brian 4 0 2 0
Barbara 0 7 0 20
José 1 0 >1 0
Steven 5 0 3 0
Total 38 18 20 51
Metalinguistic insights (21/225; 9% total CS)
Lucy 2 2 1 6
Katherine 5 3 3 8
Brian 3 0 2 0
Barbara 0 1 0 3
José 2 0 1 0
Steven 3 0 2 0
Total 15 6 9 17
Topic, person, question switch (8/225; 4% total CS)
Lucy 1 0 <1 0
Katherine 4 0 2 0
Brian 0 0 0 0
Barbara 0 0 0 0
José 2 0 1 0
Steven 1 0 <1 0
Total 8 0 3 0
Total (by WW 190 35 100 100
context)

she had begun during a previous Spanish WW session. As Katherine reflected on the
accuracy and effectiveness of her written language, she engaged in a series of iterative
steps in which she integrated the use of English and Spanish to solve problems that
Gort 59

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of code-switching function patterns across Writing

Workshop (WW) contexts

emerged in the process. Katherine’s bilingual metacognitive statements reflect pat-

terns observed across all participants, although the frequency of use of code switching
for these purposes varied among them.

In the following example, as Katherine sits down to begin the day’s Spanish
WW session, she turns to page 1 of her story in progress to reread what she had
written earlier that week. Text on page 1 reads, “fui mos a le [sic] paseo de
Museo de ciencias” (We went to the Museum of Science field trip).

Katherine: [reading] Fuimos a el paseo de museo . . . (We went to the Museum

[of Science] field trip . . .)
That doesn’t work!
Voy a cambiarlo. Okay. (I’m going to change it. . . .)
De museo . . . I think I need to change that. (Of the museum . . .)
. . . then when I erase [erases Museo de ciencias.
[Katherine rehearses alternative] para Museo de Ciencia. That doesn’t make
sense either! (to Museum of Science. . . .)
[Katherine refers back to story plan where she had written initial ideas she might
include in her draft]
¡O! Para el Museo de Ciencia. Porque mira, fuimos a el paseo para el Museo de
Ciencia. (Oh! To the Museum of Science. Because look, we went to the field
trip to the Museum of Science.)
60 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

[Katherine rehearses alternative] Fuimos al Museum, and I can write this

right over here [points to end of incomplete sentence on page 1 of story]
(We went to the Museum . . .)
. . . Museum. Yo quiero usar el museum porque tiene más sentido en inglés. (. . .
Museum. I want to use the museum because it makes more sense in English.)
Ah pués, I’m going to need to erase. (Well then, . . .)
[Katherine returns to page 1 of story to finish introductory sentence; rereads
page 1 silently]
. . . Oh, that ain’t the way I wanted to say.
Porque yo puse de. I did the wrong thing . . . I put de right here, you see? In
the center, I said it right here. Ooooo, yo puse de right here. I have to put
para. Oh yeah. [Erases de; writes para in its place on page 1] (Because I put
of. I did the wrong thing . . . I put of right here, you see? In the center, I
said it right here. Ooooh, I put of right here. I have to put to. Oh yeah.)
[Katherine refers back to story plan] Do I have museo here? Oh yeah, right
here! [Points to where she had written Museo de ciencis on plan] (Do I have
museum here? . . .)
[Katherine copies Museo de ciencis from plan, where she had previously erased
Museo de ciencias on page 1; page 1 now reads, “fui mos a le paseo para
Museo de ciencis.”]

The excerpt begins with a typical WW practice: (re)reading one’s work as a way
to orient oneself to the task and the story in progress. As Katherine reviewed the work
she had completed during the previous Spanish WW session, she noticed a problem
in the first sentence with regard to her use of the Spanish preposition de. Although
Katherine did not initially articulate what was wrong with what she had written, she
did notice that something was not right. She switched to English to verbally express
her recognition of this error (“That doesn’t work”) and then back to Spanish to state
her intention to address the issue (“I’m going to change it”). Katherine continued to
alternate between her two languages as she reflected on how she might address prob-
lems that arose in her writing (e.g., “I think I need to change that”), stated her planned
course of action (e.g., “then when I erase”), rehearsed several alternatives to revise her
“errors” (e.g., “para . . . ,” “para el . . .”), and evaluated the effectiveness of those
alternatives (“That doesn’t make sense either”).7
Katherine continued to work toward a satisfactory solution of the problem she had
identified in her story through the use of code switching. In the iterative process of
reflection, rehearsal of alternatives, and evaluation of an alternative’s effectiveness, she
considered whether substituting the English referent of the focal destination being
described, “Museum [of Science],” would provide an acceptable resolution. Katherine
actively exploited her bilingual resources in this process, eventually arriving at the
identification of the preposition de as the problem (e.g., “Porque yo puse de. I did the
wrong thing . . . I put de right here, you see?”) and the articulation of a solution (“I
Gort 61

have to put para. Oh yeah.”). The representative excerpt evidences Katherine’s think-
ing process and illustrates how emergent bilingual writers in this study used their devel-
oping dual-language skills to monitor whether what they produced on paper captured
their intentions and ideas for developing their stories in progress.
Sociolinguistic and sociocultural patterns in children’s oral code switching. Throughout
the data, there was evidence that emergent bilinguals were developing sociolinguistic
and sociocultural competence. The four subcategories in this area illustrate separate
but related aspects of students’ cultural and linguistic awareness. These included (a) 9
switches representing common loan words and/or lexical items to which children had
been exposed at a higher frequency in a particular language; (b) 36 switches indicating
momentary inclination, with evidence that the child knew the word in both languages;
(c) 4 stylistic switches characterizing particular emphasis of meaning; and (d) 7 cultur-
ally relevant discourse markers.
Use of loan words and Spanish-English hybrid terms. A small number of code switches
revealed children’s knowledge of commonly used loan words and Spanish-English
hybrid terms in their Dominican American community. Children integrated these
terms naturally and easily into their talk and texts and discussed the nature of these
bilingual, bicultural words. For example, Steven included the term day care in one of
his Spanish stories, and after realizing his use of the English word in a Spanish story,
he articulated the distinction between the English term and its Spanish equivalent,
deiqueal, to Lucy.

Steven: En español es deiqueal [Spanish pronunciation], no day care [English

pronunciation]. (In Spanish it’s deiqueal [Spanish pronunciation], not day
care [English pronunciation].)
[Points to day care on page 3 of his story] Mira, tiene una e [letter name, Span-
ish] y deiqueal tiene ele [letter name, Spanish]. (Look, it has an e [letter
name, Spanish] and deiqueal has an ele [letter name, Spanish].)

In his explanation, Steven applied standard Spanish phonological patterns based on

the local Dominican American community’s standards of usage when referring to the
Spanish term deiqueal, demonstrating an emerging understanding of socially and
culturally appropriate uses of language. In addition to highlighting the phonological
differences between the two words, Steven pointed out the spelling and graphophone-
mic patterns that distinguish the two words and qualify them as either English or
Spanish (e.g., silent e at end of English version; final /l/ sound in Spanish version).
Other examples of loan words and colloquialisms in children’s writing-related talk
included mol (mall), cou (coat), and cucao (cookout). Although many of these terms
have “standard Spanish” translations (e.g., güardería de niños for day care; centro de
compras for mall), the translation equivalents did not represent commonly used terms
in the children’s community.
Flexible use of bilingual lexicon. This category also included switches representing
words that children knew in both languages but used quite flexibly between their two
62 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

codes. Some examples from the Spanish WW include Brian’s use of English letter
names (E-N) when spelling aloud the word en (in) and Steven’s integration of both
Spanish and English terms for color and change in the same turn below.

Steven: [to José] La piscina . . . algunas veces se change colors . . . it can

change colors . . . porque mira . . . era de este color y después se cambió más.
(The pool . . . sometimes it change[s] colors . . . it can change colors . . .
because look . . . it was this color and later it changed more.)

This category also included lexical code switches of common conjunctions and
connectors, such as porque and because, pero and but, and entonces and so, that mir-
rored typical bilingual speech patterns in the children’s Dominican American com-
munity. Representative examples include the following:

Lucy: You put a silent e. I’m gonna put a silent e porque that was my idea.
Barbara: Pero how am I gonna write I?
Katherine: La maestra dijo que I’m slow porque . . . I’m not sure. (The teacher
said that I’m slow because . . . I’m not sure.)

Stylistic switches and discourse markers. Last, a small number of code switches in this
category indicated emphasis, stylistic uses, or culturally relevant discourse markers
(e.g., “There!” “¡Ya!”). Examples of stylistic uses of code switching included chil-
dren’s maintenance of language-specific titles (and corresponding pronunciation) for
Spanish and English classroom teachers (e.g., Señora Lopez and Mrs. Dowling,
respectively) as well as culturally appropriate names for family members (e.g., Tío
[Uncle] Melvin, Abuela [Grandma]) and other culturally based referents that related to
children’s social and cultural experiences within their bilingual, bicultural community
(e.g., bodega [corner store], YMCA). That is, regardless of the classroom or language
context in which the conversation transpired, children maintained the culturally and
linguistically relevant reference and pronunciation for some terms, sometimes result-
ing in a code switch.
Metalinguistic functions of code switching: Translating, defining, and discussing words and
word forms in two languages. Emergent bilingual writers also drew on their developing
dual-language repertoire to discuss relevant vocabulary used in their drafts or found in
environmental print, including cross-linguistic forms of equivalent lexical terms (i.e.,
translations), word meanings, and word forms. This iterative function of code switch-
ing, what Gibbons (1987) has coined “bilingual echoing” (p. 80), involved a variety of
linguistic and paralinguistic strategies, including the repetition of words or utterances,
either literally or in modified form, for different purposes (e.g., to emphasize, to ensure
understanding of a target word, to explain or expand a concept, to verify and/or build
vocabulary).
Repeating words in two languages. Emergent bilinguals offered translations for rele-
vant terms in their writing-related self-talk and conversations with peers. Children
Gort 63

rarely integrated these cross-linguistic repetitions into their texts, however. The fol-
lowing representative examples illustrate children’s attention to and integration of
cross-linguistic equivalent terms throughout the writing process:

Brian: [to José] That’s airplane, but in Spanish it’s avión.

Katherine: [to Steven] Yo vi un alce. Un alce es un moose. (I saw a moose. A
moose is . . .)
Steven: [to Katherine] Museum [of Science]. Same thing like el Museo de
Ciencia. (Museum . . . Same thing like the Museum of Science.)

Analyses of emergent bilinguals’ writing-related conversations suggest that these

translation-related code switches served the multiple purposes of emphasizing and
reinforcing knowledge of relevant lexical items as well as building and/or expanding
children’s and their peers’ dual-language lexicon.
Defining and discussing target vocabulary, with code switching. Emergent bilinguals
also used their developing dual-language skills to further elaborate relevant concepts
and topics in their own and their peers’ writing:

Lucy: [to Katherine] El que tiene los cuernos largos, como un moose. (The one
that has long antlers, like a moose.)
José: [to Steven] Ciempiés. That’s the one with a hundred legs. (Centipede.
That’s the one with a hundred legs.)
Brian: [to Lucy] Secret agent . . . como un detective. (Secret agent . . . like a
detective.)

As illustrated by the examples above, young writers used code switching to expand
on or embellish ideas, to define target vocabulary, and to contextualize explanations.
Cross-linguistic reformulations, with new information added, served to clarify stu-
dents’ intended message and were used as a strategy to develop their ability to negoti-
ate meaning and understanding.
Discussing language forms, with code switching. Emergent bilinguals also used code
switching to contrast language forms, as seen in the following examples:

Lucy: [to Katherine; pointing to the word why? on the graphic organizer used
to plan a new story] In Spanish that’s two words: ¿por qué? In English it’s
one word: why?
Lucy: [to Brian; looking over at a big book in the reading corner whose title
included the word animal] That’s in Spanish and English! Animal [Spanish
pronunciation] and animal [English pronunciation].
Steven: [checking whether the date stamp is set correctly] Mai [Spanish pronun-
ciation] . . . May ten? Dice, “May ten.” Dice, “May ten,” not “mayo ten.”
Solo necesita una o. (Mai . . . May ten? It says, “May ten.” It says, “May
ten,” not “mayo [Spanish word for May] ten.” It only needs an o.)
64 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

In the first example above, Lucy notices that the Spanish translation for the English
term why consists of two words (por qué) and shares her observation with her table-
mate. This reflection leads to a collaborative focused search for other similarly inter-
esting differences between English and Spanish equivalent question words (e.g., what,
when, how). In the second example, Lucy evidences cross-linguistic awareness and
understanding through her observation that the word animal, a cognate in Spanish and
English, is written exactly the same in both languages. In addition, she demonstrates
dual-language decoding skills by accurately applying Spanish and English sound-
symbol correspondence across the two languages. In the third example, Steven finds
an unexpected English word in the Spanish classroom context when he notices that
the date stamp tool includes only English terms for months. Initially assuming that the
date stamp would include Spanish words (and supported by the program’s intentional
and consistent language separation policy), Steven applies Spanish phonology to
decode the English word May but quickly realizes that it is written in English. He then
reflects on the difference between the Spanish and English versions of the word by
articulating how the English term could be converted to its Spanish equivalent, mayo
(i.e., by adding the vowel o at the end).
Using code switching to indicate shifts in topic, person, or syntactic form. A very small
number of code switches signaled a change of topic, dialogue produced by others, or
the integration of a question within a turn. The following examples illustrate these
(infrequently observed) functions of code switching:

Lucy: ¡A! La mamá de Leslie is White. (Oh! Leslie’s mom is White.)

Katherine: La maestra Lopez dijo que you can have anyone you want. (Profes-
sor Lopez said that you can have anyone you want.)
Katherine: Bajamos de la guagua. Entramos al museo. How can I do those two
parts? (We got off the bus. We entered the museum. How can I do those
two parts?)

Discussion
This study examined the incidence, form, content, and function of emergent Spanish-
English bilinguals’ oral code switches. Findings support the view that code switching
is not done because children are deficient or confused by their two languages; rather,
they are living their lives in bilingual environments where alternating between two
languages is an important and, at times, necessary element of communication.
Furthermore, as children learned to employ strategies to express themselves in writing
in two languages, they used these strategies across languages and frequently employed
multiple cross-linguistic strategies. In this section, I summarize the main findings and
interpret these findings using both social interactionist and integrated frameworks of
dual-language and literacy development.
Students’ writing-related talk across and within Spanish and English academic con-
texts provided a window into the complex composing behaviors of emergent bilingual
Gort 65

writers, including the alternation between, and integration and synthesis of, multiple
linguistic codes to communicate ideas and experiences in writing. Code switching was
found to be a useful and naturally occurring practice among both Spanish-dominant
and English-dominant emergent bilinguals. These findings corroborate and extend
previous research that documents the ways in which emergent bilinguals use two lan-
guages strategically and identifies code switching as an important aspect of bilingual
and biliterate development (Baker, 2006; Genesee, 2002; Gort, 2006, 2008, 2011;
Gumperz, Cook-Gumperz, & Szymanski, 1999; Kenner, 2004; Zentella, 1997).

Utility and Forms of Code Switching in the Creation of Spanish and

English Texts
Emergent bilingual children in this study were developing oral and written language
in Spanish and English at the same time and, thus, always had more than one set of
resources available when writing. At some points in their writing process, children
seemed to draw on both sets of linguistic resources at once, whereas at others, they
switched from using one set to using the other. This switching, or integration of two
linguistic systems, as evidenced in children’s writing-related talk, represents strategic
uses of two languages to capture and detail their lives and experiences in multiple
worlds. However, the hegemony of English in the wider U.S. society influenced chil-
dren’s language use, as both groups of children integrated much more English in their
development of Spanish-language stories than Spanish in their English-language sto-
ries. This meant that children’s bilingual resources were exploited more actively in
some contexts than others.
All participants, regardless of home language background, used code switching in
the Spanish WW. In this context, both Spanish- and English-dominant children
adopted a bilingual mode for thinking and talking about writing. Their varied and
complex code-switching practices reveal children’s developing facility with and pro-
ficiencies in each language as well as their ability to draw from each language to
support their writing efforts. However, different patterns of language use were seen
in the English classroom, where Spanish-dominant children used code switching in
the act of writing but to a much lesser degree than in the Spanish WW. English-
dominant emergent bilinguals rarely code-switched in the English classroom context.
Students’ tendency to adopt a monolingual mode in the English setting provides some
indication of the contrasting ways in which they might interpret the usefulness of
code switching in the two linguistic contexts (i.e., Spanish might not have been seen
as a resource for writing in English, whereas English played a prevalent role in the
creation of Spanish texts).
Students’ code-switching patterns were not only quantitatively different; they also
differed in quality. Code switches in the English WW were predominately intrasenten-
tial in nature. This meant that Spanish-dominant writers generally used English for
talking about writing in the English classroom and included Spanish (L1) lexical items
and phrases in some of their utterances. In the Spanish context, English played a
66 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

significant role in the creation of Spanish texts for both groups of children and blended
with Spanish within and between turns. This imbalance in code-switching patterns
might reflect not only Spanish-dominant children’s shifting language preferences
(Potowski, 2004) and their perceptions of the utility of code switching for Spanish
versus English language academic tasks, but also their sensitivity to the dominance of
English in the broader social context.

Functions of Code Switching in Emergent Bilinguals’ Writing Process

This study provides evidence that emergent bilingual children use appropriate com-
munication strategies for specific purposes and situations. Participants used code
switching strategically and responsibly for specific situations and purposes in ways
that encompassed their developing knowledge of each language, their prior knowl-
edge and experiences, their formal and informal ways of communicating and meaning
making, and their developing bilingual and bicultural identities (Gort, 2008). This
finding challenges the view that code switching is simply a sign of communicative
incompetence or lack of proficiency in one or both languages (MacSwan, 2000;
Zentella, 1997).
Code switching fulfilled a variety of academic functions, as emergent bilinguals
resolved practical issues that arose in their writing through the use of two languages.
Children used code switching for reflective, evaluative, and regulatory purposes to
address problems across different domains of writing. For example, Katherine’s recog-
nition and self-correction of a grammatical error illuminated the use of code switching
to attend to structural surface features of writing. The availability of more than one
language is part of a total communicative and literacy resource. Children drew on their
developing bilingual repertoire to articulate their thought process in creating text and
used bilingual talk as a problem-solving strategy to meet various form- and content-
based challenges (I. Reyes & Moll, 2008).
Children integrated hybrid English-Spanish terms (e.g., deiqueal) in the develop-
ment of Spanish-medium stories. These English-influenced “Spanish words” repre-
sent common colloquialisms within children’s Dominican American community,
which they distinguished from their English equivalents (e.g., day care). Children’s
use of culturally based terms and community-based colloquialisms illustrates their
emerging sociolinguistic competence and suggests that emergent bilingual children’s
development of biliteracy is influenced and mediated by their sociocultural contexts.
That is, experiences in children’s immediate and broader environments contribute to
dual-language learning and socialization (I. Reyes & Azuara, 2008). Code switching,
then, served as evidence of children’s simultaneous experiences in and negotiation of
two worlds, which are represented by different languages.
Emergent bilinguals also manipulated their developing languages as formal sys-
tems and used code switching as a metalinguistic resource to negotiate meaning and
expand their vocabulary; to explain words, ideas, and concepts; and to explore and
reinforce language forms. Clever discourse strategies, such as bilingual echoing,
Gort 67

revealed participants’ growing bilingualism and interest in the structural character-

istics of their two languages (Gibbons, 1987; Olmedo, 2003). Switching from one
language to the other to discuss word forms and meanings helped students relate
new linguistic and conceptual information to their existing knowledge; brought
attention to morpho-syntactic, semantic, and orthographic differences between the
languages; and supported the unfolding of meaning. As children differentiated
between English and Spanish forms and word meanings in explanations and transla-
tions, they enhanced their metalinguistic awareness and engaged in higher-order,
abstract thinking (Orellana & Reynolds, 2008). Such cross-linguistic interactions
appear to provide bidirectional language and literacy learning opportunities (Gort,
2006, 2008, 2011).
Findings suggest that emergent bilinguals, therefore, have a wide linguistic, com-
municative, and cultural repertoire to support their conversational and literacy goals.
They draw from this repertoire in strategic ways according to the contexts in which
they participate and the relative value of the two languages in each context. Analyses
revealed how, in spite of the dual-language program’s official policy of language
separation, participants proved their capacity to exploit the linguistic repertoire they
share. Within the highly interactive context of WW, children used code switching in
their self-talk and interactions with peers as a legitimate strategy to engage in aca-
demic tasks. Both languages appeared to remain activated throughout the writing
process as children tapped into their shared dual-language repertoire to address
questions and solve problems they considered relevant for carrying out writing-
related tasks. Through bilingual interactions, children scaffolded and transformed
each other’s dual-language and literacy development (Gregory, Long, & Volk, 2004;
Gutierrez, 2008).

Conclusion
This study adds to the research that proposes that bilingual children are constantly
moving between two worlds and that living in two worlds simultaneously is partially
manifested in oral language through code switching. As evidenced in children’s
writing-related talk, cross-language switching supports the writing process but may
result in nonstandard and/or mixed language. The findings are congruent with other
studies that suggest that for young bilinguals, biliteracy is emerging in ways that are
not commonly recognized in most school contexts (Escamilla, 2006; Gort, 2006,
2008, 2011; Kenner, 2004). Grounded in monolingual views of language develop-
ment, commonly prescribed instructional practices in dual-language programs man-
date the separation of the two languages to encourage and foster parallel development
in each language. In practice, these institutional constraints might actually restrict
possibilities for children’s multilingual potential. As Kenner (2004) argues, “the wider
society tries to keep children’s worlds separate, with different codes for each context.
Children, however, tend to integrate and synthesize their resources” (p. 59). From a
bilingual perspective, code switching is interpreted as a sign of purposive language
68 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

use through which the integration of multiple codes and scripts serves to support dual-
language and literacy learning, produce a range of expressive effects, and accomplish
particular intended meanings in two languages.

Appendix
Coding Categories, Definitions, and Examples of Code-Switching
Functions8
Metacognitive Statements
•• Reflection, judgment, evaluation: Switches involving a personal reflection,
evaluation, or attempt at monitoring or self-regulating the writing process or
resulting product

Example (Steven, Spanish Writing Workshop [WW]): “Oh, I forgot the s for
carreras. [Adds s at end of carrera] Mucha, mucha!” (“Oh, I forgot the s for
races. . . . Lots, lots!”)

Sociolinguistic/Sociocultural Patterns
•• Lexical Need 1: Switches indicating common loan words or lack of exact
equivalent or frequency of exposure, that is, lexical items to which the chil-
dren have been exposed at a higher frequency rate in a particular language

Example (Steven, Spanish WW): “Después era tiempo de irnos para el Salem
Point Daycare y nos fuimos al day care.” (“Later it was time for us to go to
the Salem Point Daycare and we went to the day care.”)

•• Lexical Need 2: Switches indicating momentary inclination, with evidence

that speaker knows term in both languages

Example (Brian, Spanish WW): “Yo fui a Florida” [English pronunciation]. (“I
went to Florida.”)

•• Emphasis, stylistic: Switch emphasizing, representing, and/or reinforcing a

particular meaning or message

Example (Barbara, English WW): “We went in my tío Melvin’s car.” (“We went
in my uncle Melvin’s car.”)

•• Discourse marker: Switched linguistic elements that do not necessarily add

to the content of the utterance but act as markers of the context in which the
utterance is taking place
Gort 69

•• Example (Lucy, English WW): “OK, ya! I remember.” (“OK, there! I

remember.”)

Metalinguistic Insights
•• Translation, paraphrase, definition: Switches involving the repetition of the
same lexical item or utterance in each language, a paraphrase of the utterance
in the other language, or a definition or explanation of a term in the other
language

Example (José, Spanish WW): [to Steven] “Ciempiés. That’s the one with a
hundred legs.” (“Centipede. That’s the one with a hundred legs.”)

Topic, Person, Situation Switch

•• Situation switch: Switches marking a shift between writing and nonwriting
talk

Example (Lucy, Spanish WW): [illustrating story about a play date with her
friend Leslie] “¡A! La mamá de Leslie is White.” (“Oh! Leslie’s mom is
White.”)

•• Person specification: Switches occurring when children referred to another

person during their conversation

Example (Katherine, Spanish WW): “La maestra López dijo que you can have
anyone you want.” (“Professor Lopez said that you can have anyone you
want.”)

•• Question shift: Switches indicating a change in language when children

blended questions within a turn

Example (Katherine, Spanish WW): [to Lucy] “Bajamos de la guagua. Entramos

al museo. How can I do those two parts?” (“We got off the bus. We entered
the museum. How can I do those two parts?”)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
70 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

Notes

1. For an overview of findings related to the incidence and functions of (emergent bilinguals’)
written code switches, see Gort (2006).
2. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, the two most common program mod-
els are minority-language-dominant models, in which the minority language is used for
instruction 80% to 90% of the time in the early years for all students, with increasing use
of English each year until reaching a 50-50 ratio by about fourth grade, and balanced pro-
grams, in which the amount of instructional time is equal in the two languages from the
beginning of the program and remains equally distributed throughout the program’s dura-
tion (Howard & Sugarman, 2001).
3. Writing Workshop (WW) in the second language was offered as an alternative to the (oral
language-based) English as a Second Language or Spanish as a Second Language class,
which students attended on days without native- or dominant-language (L1) WW. Students
continued to participate in WW in L1 on alternating days.
4. In accordance with the two-way immersion program’s model of language distribution, this
meant that Spanish-dominant students received more instruction in Spanish in the earlier
grades, including initial literacy instruction, whereas English-dominant students received
more instruction in English.
5. Research assistants were (Spanish-English) bilingual graduate students who had received
training in classroom-based ethnographic approaches to data collection, preparation, cod-
ing, and analysis.
6. In addition to the research assistants, the research team included the classroom teachers
and the school’s biliteracy specialist.
7. Although Katherine notices some errors in her writing through this process of evaluation,
reflection, and revision, she does not detect all instances of inaccurate language use in her
writing (e.g., a el should be written in the contracted form al; el and ciencia are misspelled).
She does, however, address these errors in a subsequent WW session with teacher scaffolding.
8. Code switches are in boldface type, researcher’s notes are presented in brackets, and trans-
lations to English are in parentheses.

References
Aguirre, A., Jr. (1985). An experimental study of code alternation. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 53, 59-82.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multi-
lingual Matters.
Becker, K. R. (1997). Spanish-English bilingual code switching: A syncretic model. Bilingual
Review, 22(1), 3-30.
Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Callahan, L. (2004). Spanish/English codeswitching in a written corpus. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Gort 71

Christian, D. (1996). Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages.
Modern Language Journal, 80, 66-76.
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Lan-
guage Research, 7(2), 103-117.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Toronto, Canada: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Cummins, J. (2005). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language education: Pos-
sibilities and pitfalls. Paper presented at TESOL Symposium on Dual Language Education:
Teaching and Learning Two Languages in the EFL Setting. Bogazici University, Istanbul,
Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.achievementseminars.com/seminar_series_2005_2006/
readings/tesol.turkey.pdf
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. London, UK: Longman.
Dahl, K. L. (1993). Children’s spontaneous utterances during early reading and writing instruc-
tion in whole-language classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(3), 279-294.
Dearholt, D. W., & Valdés-Fallis, G. (1978). Toward a probabilistic automata model of some
aspects of code switching. Language in Society, 7(3), 411-420.
Dyson, A. H. (1983). The role of oral language in early writing processes. Research in the
Teaching of English, 17, 1-23.
Dyson, A. H. (1990). Research currents: Diversity, social responsibility, and the story of literacy
development. Language Arts, 61, 192-205.
Dyson, A. H. (2000). Writing and the sea of voices: Oral language in, around, and about writing.
In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing research, theory, and practice
(pp. 45-65). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dyson, A. H. (2006). On saying it right (write): “Fix-its” in the foundations of learning to write.
Research in the Teaching of English, 41(1), 8-42.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Escamilla, K. (2006). Semilingualism applied to the literacy behaviors of Spanish-speaking
emerging bilinguals: Bi-illiteracy or emerging biliteracy? Teachers College Record,
108(11), 2329-2353.
Fantini, A. E. (1985). Language acquisition of a bilingual child: A sociolinguistic perspective.
San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
Freeman, R. (2000). Contextual challenges to dual-language education: A case study of a devel-
oping middle school program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 31(2), 202-229.
Genesee, F. (2000). Early language development: One language or two? In L. Wei (Ed.), The
bilingualism reader (pp. 327-343). London, UK: Routledge.
Genesee, F. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition: Exploring the limits of the language
faculty. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 153-170.
72 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

Genesee, F. (2002). Portrait of the bilingual child. In V. Cook (Ed.), Perspectives on the L2 user
(pp. 170-196). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Genesee, F., Boivin, I., & Nicoladis, E. (1996). Talking with strangers: A study of bilingual
children’s communicative competence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17(4), 427-442.
Gibbons, J. (1987). Code-mixing and code-choice: A Hong Kong case study. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Gingràs, R. (1974). Problems in the description of Spanish-English intra-sentential code-
switching. In G. A. Bills (Ed.), Southwest areal linguistics (pp. 167-174). San Diego, CA:
Institute for Cultural Pluralism.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goodman, K. (1992). Why whole language is today’s agenda in education. Language Arts, 69,
354-363.
Gort, M. (2006). Strategic code switching, interliteracy, and other phenomena of emergent bilin-
gual writing: Lessons from first-grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early Child-
hood Literacy, 6(3), 323-354.
Gort, M. (2008). “You give me idea!” Collaborative strides toward bilingualism and biliteracy
in a two-way partial immersion program. Multicultural Perspectives, 10(4), 192-200.
Gort, M. (2011). Evaluation and revision processes of emergent bilinguals. In E. B. Bauer &
M. Gort (Eds.), Early biliteracy development: Exploring young learners’ use of their lin-
guistic resources (pp. 90-110). New York, NY: Routledge.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Gregory, E., Long, S., & Volk, D. (2004). Many pathways to literacy: Learning with siblings,
peers, grandparents, and in community settings. London, UK: Routledge.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1977). The sociolinguistic significance of conversational code-switching. RELC
Journal, 8(1), 1-34.
Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2005). Making space for bilingual communicative prac-
tice. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 1-23.
Gumperz, J. J., Cook-Gumperz, J., & Szymanski, M. (1999). Collaborative practices in bilin-
gual cooperative learning classrooms (Research Report 7). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for
Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.
Gutierrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.
Halmari, H., & Smith, W. (1994). Code-switching and register shift: Evidence from Finnish-
English child bilingual conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(4), 427-445.
Hornberger, N. (2005). Student voice and the media of bi(multi)lingual/multicultural class-
rooms. In T. McCarty (Ed.), Language, literacy and power in schooling (pp. 151-167).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Howard, E., & Sugarman, J. (2001). Two-way immersion programs: Features and statistics
(Report No. EDO-FL-01-01). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and
Linguistics and Center for Applied Linguistics.
Gort 73

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007). Guid-
ing principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Jacobson, R. (1990). Code switching as a worldwide phenomenon. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Jørgensen, J. (1998). Children’s acquisition of code-switching for power wielding. In P. Auer
(Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity (pp. 237-261).
London, UK: Routledge.
Kenner, C. (2004). Living in simultaneous worlds: Difference and integration in bilingual
script-learning. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(1), 43-61.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert exper-
iment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Larson, J. (1995). Talk matters: The role of pivot in the distribution of literacy knowledge
among novice writers. Linguistics and Education, 7, 277-302.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lipski, J. (1985). Linguistic aspects of Spanish-English language switching. Tempe: Arizona
State University, Center for Latin American Studies.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass &
C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
MacSwan, J. (2000). The threshold hypothesis, semilingualism, and other contributions to a
deficit view of linguistic minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(1), 3-45.
MacSwan, J. (2004). Code switching and grammatical theory. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie
(Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 283-311). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals.
In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 141-166). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Manyak, P. C. (2001). Participation, hybridity, and carnival: A situated analysis of a dynamic
literacy practice in a primary-grade English immersion class. Journal of Literacy Research,
33(3), 423-465.
Martinez, R. A. (2010). Spanglish as literacy tool: Toward an understanding of the potential role
of Spanish-English code switching in the development of academic literacy. Research in the
Teaching of English, 45(2), 124-149.
McCarthey, S. J. (1994). Authors, text, and talk: The internalization of dialogue from social
interaction during writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(3), 201-231.
McClure, E. (1981). Formal and functional aspects of the codeswitched discourse of bilingual
children. In R. Duran (Ed.), Latino language and communicative behavior (pp. 69-94).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Meisel, J. (2004). The bilingual child. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of
bilingualism (pp. 91-113). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Montes-Alcala, C. (2001). Written code switching: Powerful bilingual images. In R. Jacobson
(Ed.), Code switching worldwide II (pp. 193-219). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
74 Journal of Literacy Research 44(1)

Olmedo, I. M. (2003). Language mediation among emergent bilingual children. Linguistics and
Education, 14(2), 143-162.
Orellana, M. F., & Reynolds, J. F. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging bilingual skills for
school paraphrasing tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 48-65.
Paradis, J., Nicoladis, E., & Genesee, F. (2000). Early emergence of structural constraints on
code-mixing: Evidence from French-English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 3(3), 245-261.
Parr, J., Jesson, R., & McNaughton, S. (2009). Agency and platform: The relationships between
talk and writing. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of writing development (pp. 246-259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pérez, B. (2004). Language, literacy, and biliteracy. In B. Pérez (Ed.), Sociocultural contexts of
language and literacy (2nd ed., pp. 25-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pfaff, W. (1979). Constraints of language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing
in Spanish/English. Language, 55, 291-318.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning
conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Pinnel, G. S. (1980). Discovering language with children. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a
typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581-618.
Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implica-
tions for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. Modern Language
Journal, 88(1), 75-101.
Reyes, I. (2004). Functions of code switching in schoolchildren’s conversations. Bilingual
Research Journal, 28(1), 77-98.
Reyes, I., & Azuara, P. (2008). Emergent biliteracy in young Mexican immigrant children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 374-398.
Reyes, I., & Moll, L. (2008). Bilingual and biliterate practices at home and school. In B. Spolsky &
F. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 147-160). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Reyes, M. de la Luz. (2001). Unleashing possibilities: Biliteracy in the primary grades. In.
M. de la Luz Reyes & J. J. Halcón (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on
literacy for Latino students (pp. 96-121). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and com-
prehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in sec-
ond language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
Timm, L. (1975). Spanish-English code switching: El por qué y how-not-to. Romance Philol-
ogy, 28(4), 473-482.
Toribio, A. J. (2001). On the emergence of bilingual code-switching competence. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 4(3), 203-231.
Gort 75

Unamuno, V. (2008). Multilingual switch in peer classroom interaction. Linguistics and Educa-
tion, 19, 1-19.
Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard,
& S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource
(pp. 37-77). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bio
Mileidis Gort is an assistant professor of language and literacy at the University of Miami. Her
research examines the early bilingual and biliteracy development of English and Spanish speak-
ers in dual-language programs, educational policies affecting bilingual learners, and curricular
reform efforts toward culturally and linguistically responsive teacher education. Her work has
been published in a variety of journals, including Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
Research in the Teaching of English, Multicultural Perspectives, Bilingual Research Journal,
and Educational Policy. She is a coeditor with Eurydice Bauer of Early Biliteracy Development:
Exploring Young Learners’ Use of their Linguistic Resources (Routledge, 2011).