c


c
  refers to the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech.

Some scholars use the terms "code-mixing" and "code-switching" interchangeably, especially in
[2][3]
studies of syntax, morphology, and other formal aspects of language. Others assume more
specific definitions of code-mixing, but these specific definitions may be different in different subfields
of linguistics, education theory,communications etc.

Code-mixing is similar to the use or creation of pidgins; but while a pidgin is created across groups
that do not share a common language, code-mixing may occur within a multilingual setting where
speakers share more than one language.

Code-mixing as code-switching

Some linguists use the terms code-mixing and code-switching more or less interchangeably.
Especially in formal studies of syntax, morphology, etc., both terms are used to refer
to utterances that draw from elements of two or more grammatical systems.These studies are often
interested in the alignment of elements from distinct systems, or on constraints that limit switching.

While many linguists have worked to describe the difference between code-switching
and borrowing of words or phrases, the term code-mixing may be used to encompass both types of
language behavior.

While the term code-switching emphasizes a multilingual speaker's movement from one grammatical
system to another, the term code-mixing suggests a hybrid form, drawing from distinct grammars. In
other words, j
 emphasizes the formal aspects of language structures or linguistic
competence, while j

j emphasizes linguistic performance.

Code-mixing in sociolinguistics

While linguists who are primarily interested in the structure or form of code-mixing may have relatively
little interest to separate code-mixing from code-switching, some sociolinguists have gone to great
lengths to differentiate the two phenomena. For these scholars, code-switching is associated with
particular pragmatic effects, discourse functions, or associations with group identity. In this tradition,
the terms j
  or   are used to describe more stable situations in which
multiple languages are used without such pragmatic effects.

Choice of Cantonese mixed with English sometimes entails a risk of alienation in intra-ethnic
communication. Subjects of this study generally make a conscious effort not to code-mix when the
interlocutors¶ educational level is lower than theirs and especially when the interlocutors are close to
them, e.g. parents, relatives and friends. This observation is supported by the minimal level of
code-mixing in most recorded conversations with interlocutors of these backgrounds. The major
reason given is that students do not want to be regarded as showing off or snobbish, as English is a
prestige language in the community and the social sanction against the use of English among
Chinese in Hong Kong is strong. An inappropriate extent of code-mixing is perceived to result in
alienation from the group one wishes to belong to.

On the other hand, Cantonese-English mix is a strong binding force among educated bilinguals in
Hong Kong. It expresses a unique group solidarity and as a special register, facilitates easy
communication among group members. It allows them to express ideas and feelings without fear of
misunderstanding and without the trouble of circumlocution or explanation in either English or
Cantonese. Focus group interviews suggest that this is the most ³comfortable´ choice as pure English
and pure Cantonese force them to speak cautiously. In speaking English, they are nervous about
expressing themselves accurately and avoiding linguistic mistakes. In speaking Cantonese, they are
worried about inserting English words inadvertently and offending interlocutors who do not understand
English. Sometimes they find it a great mental burden to have to search for an equivalent in
Cantonese and fail to access it. This tension results in an alertness in defining interpersonal
relationships. As the foregoing discussion reveals, Cantonese-English mix plays a paradoxical role in
the bilingual¶s social life. It alienates him/her from those who are less educated, but integrates him/her
into the speech community of the educated. The decision to choose pure Cantonese or mix demands
the individual to make judgments about the interlocutor¶s background and his/her relationship with
self. As the language diaries show, the bilinguals in Hong Kong have to make these choices rapidly
and frequently. It may be argued that these dynamic decision-making processes lead to greater
emotional sensitivity and pragmatic awareness.

Code choice does not only bear significance for the individual; it also indexes societal values and
attitudes. The use of English in Cantonese utterances delineates social stratification more clearly and
divides those with good education, great prestige and high social status from those without. While
mixing English is considered an act of snobbery when one uses it with those less educated than
oneself (especially those who are close to oneself), not mixing English when talking to educated
people will subject oneself to snobber.

c
 j  
In studies of bilingual language acquisition, j
  refers to a developmental stage during
which children mix elements of more than one language. Nearly all bilingual children go through a
period in which they move from one language to another without apparent discrimination. This differs
from code-switching, which is understood as the socially and grammatically appropriate use of
multiple varieties.

Beginning at the babbling stage, young children in bilingual or multilingual environments produce
utterances that combine elements of both (or all) of their developing languages. Some linguists
suggest that this code-mixing reflects a lack of control or ability to differentiate the languages. Others
argue that it is a product of limited vocabulary; very young children may know a word in one language
but not in another. More recent studies argue that this early code-mixing is a demonstration of a
developing ability to code-switch in socially appropriate ways.

Some subjects have reported difficulty in coding for their language diaries due to delicate
differentiation between pure Cantonese and a low level of English mix in Cantonese speech. In some
cases. English proper names and acronyms were not counted as English linguistic elements. In
others, certain English words have become somewhat lexicalized in Cantonese and treated as pure
Cantonese.

Examples include ³Mummy´ (pronounced as maa1mi4), ³BB´ (baby) pronounced as bi4bi1, ³OK´ and
³Bye-Bye´.

In fact, the difficulty in coding has highlighted a significant issue: how mixed is a mixed code?
Definitions of code-mixing or code-switching are reviewed in detail in. Li (1998; 2000). This paper
adopts a broader definition. Code-mixing refers to any admixture of linguistic elements of two or more
language systems in the same utterance at various levels: phonological, lexical, grammatical and
orthographical. Due to constraints of space, the discussion will focus on lexical and grammatical
code-mixing.

To explore the nature and extent of code-mixing, the English elements in the recorded materials have
been categorized according to the level of grammatical constituency (See Table 1). Unit types refer to
the letters/ words/ phrases etc found under each category, and tokens refer to the numbers of times
the letters/ words/ phrases etc were used by subjects or interlocutors.
Linguistic units Unit types Subject Interlocutor Total

token tokens tokens

1. Letters of the
alphabet 118 140 189 329
Letter names 28 40 30 70
Acronyms 90 100 159 259
2. Short Form 35 65 91 156
3. Proper Noun 220 355 341 696
Personal Names 156 265 255 520
Impersonal Name 84 90 86 170
4. Lexical Words 726 919 875 1794
5. Phrases 252 172 180 352
6. Incomplete/Minor 34 66 91 157
Sentence
7. Single Full 98 54 111 165
Sentences
8. Two-Sentence 3 2 7 9
Units
1486 1773 1885 3658

1. Letters of the alphabet

The first category is the smallest orthographical unit ² letters of the alphabet. It is common in Hong
Kong to use letters to name or distinguish between objects e.g. (Hall) A/B/C or provide assessment
e.g. (Grade) A in an examination. This category also reflects another social practice in Hong Kong:
English acronyms are used to refer to objects or ideas that are common in a bilingual,
businessoriented international city.
Examples include OT for ³Overtime´, OL for ³Office Lady´ and MTR for ³Mass Transit
Railway´. Students have formed the habit of abbreviating terms used within a specific and familiar
context, e.g SU for ³Student Union´ and GPA for ³Grade Point Average´.

2. Short forms
These are formed by morphologically truncating lexical words and are chiefly related to courses of
study, e.g. ³transla´ for ³translation´, ³pre´ or ³present´ for ³presentation´, and ³soci´ for ³sociology´.

3. Proper nouns
Personal names take up about 14% of the total number of tokens of English mix in the recorded
materials. The prevalent adoption of an English name by Hong Kong individuals is an indication of
their Westernized orientation. Impersonal proper names which consist mainly of English names of
brands, companies, products and buildings also express this orientation at the societal level.

4. Lexical words
This category makes up the largest portion of code-mixed linguistic items and includes IT-related
terms.

CODE-MIXING IN PSYCOLOGY AND PSYCHOLINGUISTIC

In psychology and in psycholinguistics the label j
  is used in theories that draw on studies
of language alternation or code-switching to describe the cognitive structures underlying bilingualism.
During the 1950s and 1960s, psychologists and linguists treated bilingual speakers as, in Grosjean's
term, "two monolinguals in one person."This "fractional view" supposed that a bilingual speaker
carried two separate mental grammars that were more or less identical to the mental grammars of
monolinguals and that were ideally kept separate and used separately. Studies since the 1970s,
however, have shown that bilinguals regularly combine elements from "separate" languages. These
findings have led to studies of code-mixing in psychology and psycholinguistics.
Sridhar and Sridhar define code-mixing as "the transition from using linguistic units (words, phrases,
clauses, etc.) of one language to using those of another within a single sentence.´ They note that this
is distinct from code-switching in that it occurs in a single sentence (sometimes known
as   
j) and in that it does not fulfill the pragmatic or discourse-oriented functions
described by sociolinguists. (See Code-mixing in sociolinguistics, above.) The practice of code-
mixing, which draws from competence in two languages at the same time suggests that these
competences are not stored or processed separately. Code-mixing among bilinguals is therefore
studied in order to explore the mental structures underlying language abilities.

Code-mixing as fused lect

A 
 or a 
j is a relatively stable mixture of two or more languages. What
some linguists have described as "codeswitching as unmarked choice" or "frequent
codeswitching" has more recently been described as "language mixing", or in the case of the most
strictly grammaticalized forms as "fused lects".

In areas where code-switching among two or more languages is very common, it may become normal
for words from both languages to be used together in everyday speech. Unlike code-switching, where
a switch tends to occur at semantically or sociolinguistically meaningful junctures, this code-mixing
has no specific meaning in the local context. A fused lect is identical to a mixed language in terms of
semantics and pragmatics, but fused lects allow less variation since they are fully grammaticalized. In
other words, there are grammatical structures of the fused lect that determine which source-language
elements may occur.

A mixed language is different from a creole language. Creoles are thought to develop from pidgins as
they become nativized. Mixed languages develop from situations of code-switching




Ñ




 
 

Ä


 



 

h








 

       

 
   

 
 









   



   

  
  
  
 









 
 
 

 

 








 

  


   
    
  
 

 

    
 





  







  

 


 | 

 
 
    

 !"

  #$ %h
 
  
 


&







 
 
  
  
 


 '
  
  



 


  

  
 
   
  

   


  

 


 





 
  
   
  

 
   



 h   

     
 
#

%   

(
 $&

  )


%






&

 




%




 
&



Ä 
 


 



   


  
   
  

 
 
   

 


 

 

 





   


 

  

 
  
 
 


    

 
   
 




 

  

     


   
 



 
 
   



 



%


&
 

*


 
+  
  
  

   
  
  

 
 
 

 
 

 
  
 
   




 


  


  



 

    
   





h  









 










Ä 



*
   
 
  


  
 



  
 




'


 



 


 

  
 








h 
      


 
  


  
  

 


 


  

 

 

 *
 



 






 






*
  





 
 
 
( 
  
  

    
 


    





   
  
 


   

*



 





  
 

*
 


   
 



 


 





  

  






 

 ,




  
  









 





 

 

  



   

 


 
 
 
 -

 
   
  
  


  


 


   




 


 
 

 

 


   .


 


 
 $   
  

/ 
 
  
 +  /   
 
 h

 
 

 
   
 
  
       


  
 
    


 
  

 
  
$    $