Constructively combining languages : The use of code-mixing in German-English 
bilingual child language acquisition

Endesfelder Quick, Antje; Lieven, Elena; Backus, Ed; Tomasello, Michael

doi:10.1075/lab.17008.qui

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Constructively combining languages : The use of code-mixing in German-English bilingual child language acquisition

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons73015

Tomasello, Michael
Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Endesfelder Quick, A., Lieven, E., Backus, E., & Tomasello, M. (2018). Constructively combining languages: The use of code-mixing in German-English bilingual child language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(3), 393-409. doi:10.1075/lab.17008.qui.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0002-14AB-7

Abstract

Language development in bilingual children is often related to differing levels of proficiency. Objective measurements of bilingual development include for example mean length of utterance (MLU). MLU is almost always calculated for each language context (including both monolingual and code-mixed utterances). In the current study, we analyzed the MLUs of three German-English bilingual children, aged 2;3–3;11 separately for the monolingual and code-mixed utterances. Our results showed that language preference was reflected in MLU values: the more children spoke in one language the higher the MLU was in that language. However, it was the mixed utterances that had the highest MLU for all three children. We support the results with a construction type analysis and suggest a potential usage-based explanation for these results based on individual differences in each child’s developmental inventory of words and constructions.