CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 159Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesMultilingual Education and PolicyLanguage Development and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Building bilingual oppositions: Code-switching in children's disputes

CROMDAL, JAKOB·2004·Language in Society
DOI 10.1017/s0047404504031021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article investigates children's procedures for constructing oppositional stances in argumentative exchanges. While most previous research on children's arguments entails a monolingual bias, the present analysis focuses on bilingual practices of code-switching in disputes emerging during play activities. Drawing on more than ten hours of video-taped play interaction in a bilingual school setting, it is shown how the language contrast arising through code-switching displays and highlights the affective intensity of oppositional stances. Sequential analyses show how code-switching works to escalate social opposition, often to the peak of an argument, resulting in subsequent backdown or full termination of the dispute. Moreover, in certain participant constellations code-switching may be used to constrain opponents' opportunities to engage in further adversative interaction. Finally, it is argued that an approach to play discourse concerned with children's methods for accomplishing accountable actions allows for a view of bilingualism as socially distributed; that is, as an emergent and interactionally managed feature of discourse.An early version of this article was presented at the 9th European Conference on Second Language Acquisition (EUROSLA 9) in Lund, Sweden, June 1999. Thanks are due to Karin Aronsson and Micke Tholander for comments and discussion on an earlier draft. Financial support from the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation (Grant No. 96-0639:01-02) and from the Swedish National Agency for Education (Grant No. U2001/1912/S) is gratefully acknowledged.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0047404504031021

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Mashler, 1994, Text, 14, 207
  2. Cromdal, 2003, Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 56

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 159

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
CROMDAL, J.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
CROMDAL, JAKOB
ORCID
CROMDAL, JAKOB
Venue
Language in Society
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2004-01
Volume
33
Issue
01
ISSN
  • 0047-4045 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8013
DOI
10.1017/s0047404504031021
OpenAlex
W2051190597
Cited by
153
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 14
FWCI
32.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language in Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
code-switching, bilingualism, argumentation, play interaction, social opposition, emotional intensity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review