Systems for code-mixed (CM) text and speech rarely start from scratch. CM data is scarce, so most work borrows from the languages being mixed, which we call native languages. This transfer can also run in reverse, when CM data is used to improve models for the native languages. Existing surveys focus on processing CM itself, and none brings the two directions together. This paper fills that gap with a systematic survey of transfer in both directions, across text and speech. We organise the surveyed work in a taxonomy of transfer direction, route and modality. Through this taxonomy, we find that most transfer runs from native languages into the CM setting. The reverse direction is younger, and in it code-switching mainly helps by aligning the two languages. Text and speech work share methods but rarely cite each other. On a shared speech benchmark, native data helps more than new architectures. These findings point to open challenges, such as how much native and CM data to mix in training, and how to evaluate CM text written in different scripts.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Two directions of transfer between native languages and the CM setting. Analysis work measures effects on both sides. The example mixes Hindi (green) and English (purple), with its translation below.
Approach
Mod.
What it needs
Evaluated by
What has been shown
Monolingual and parallel data (§ 3.1 )
Monolingual LM training
T
Monolingual or translated text
CM perplexity
Matches LMs trained on synthetic CM data ( Chuang et al., 2020 )
Native samples and resources
T
Labelled native data, treebanks, lexicons
F1, LAS
Helps as a supplement, but trails annotated CM data ( Mazumder et al., 2025a ; Iliescu et al., 2021 )
Pooling and LM fusion
S
Monolingual speech, text and LMs
WER, MER
Large gains only when test sentences are in the LM text ( Pandey et al., 2017 )
Mixed-lingual TTS
S
Monolingual recordings
MOS
Mixed-lingual voices from monolingual speakers ( Reddy and Rao, 2018 )
Synthetic CM data (§ 3.2 )
Table 1: Native-to-CM approaches compared. Mod.: modality (T text, S speech). Reported numbers come from different setups and are not comparable across rows.
Approach
Mod.
What it needs
Evaluated by
What has been shown
Substitution augmentation
T
Bilingual dictionary
Zero-shot accuracy, F1
Gains on 5 tasks and 19 languages ( Qin et al., 2020 )
Generated augmentation
T
Generator or LLM
Accuracy
Low-resource gains without English loss ( Nagar et al., 2025 )
Contextual switching
T
Model to choose words
POS, NER
Avoids ungrammatical swaps ( Feng et al., 2022 )
Mixed data for speech
S
CM text or speech
WER
Also lowers monolingual WER ( Hu et al., 2023 )
Pretraining objectives
T
Parallel or monolingual corpora
BLEU, XNLI
An alignment signal; parallel data may matter more ( Yang et al., 2020a ; Shao et al., 2026 )
Joint monolingual–CM models
S
CM and monolingual speech
WER
Gains on both ( Madhumani et al., 2020 )
Table 2: CM-to-native approaches compared. Mod.: modality (T text, S speech). Reported numbers come from different setups and are not comparable across rows.
Figure 2: Included papers per year and direction. Bidirectional papers count in both. Papers before 2010, without a year or without a direction are omitted. 2026 (shaded) runs to early October.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Survey
Year
No.
Text
Sp.
Dir.
C2N
Sitaram et al. (2019)
2019
–
Y
Y
N
Y
Jose et al. (2020)
2020
–
Y
P
N
N
Doğruöz et al. (2021)
2021
–
Y
P
N
N
Winata et al. (2023)
2023
400+
Y
Y
N
P
Hamed et al. (2025)
2025
–
Y
Y
N
N
Cheng et al. (2025)
2025
–
N
Y
N
N
Appendix
Table 7: Surveys of code-switching compared. No.: number of reviewed papers, if stated. Sp.: speech. Dir.: organised by transfer direction. C2N: covers CM-to-native transfer. Y yes, P partly, N no.
Table 8: Mechanism labels grouped under each route of the taxonomy tree (Figure 3 ), most frequent first. Papers whose main contribution is a resource or an evaluation fall under Analysis, whatever their direction. Papers in the residual class are not in the tree.
dev_man
dev_sge
Paper
Change over the baseline
Extra data
Base
Best
Δ
Base
Best
Δ
Trained from scratch on SEAME
Zeng et al. (2019) †
LID multitask, LM rescoring
None
34.5
25.0
− 9.5
46.4
34.5
− 11.9
Fan et al. (2023)
Language boundaries
None
16.96
16.29
− 0.7
23.73
22.81
− 0.9
Peng et al. (2022)
Fusion with a CS text LM
CS text for the LM
16.4
15.4
− 1.0
23.2
21.7
− 1.5
Adding native data
Appendix
Table 9: Matched comparisons on SEAME, a Mandarin–English CM speech corpus. Each row gives one paper’s baseline (Base) and best system (Best) in mixed error rate (MER, %). Δ is the change in points. dev_man is dominated by Mandarin, dev_sge by Singapore English. Extra data lists added corpora or the pretrained Whisper model. AISHELL is Mandarin speech, and LibriSpeech and TED-LIUM are English. LID: language identification. † Token error rate, computed like MER. Rows are not comparable with each other.
Paper
Year
Mechanism
Task
Pair
Analysis — speech
Sitaram et al. (2019)
2019
EVAL_ANALYSIS
OTHER
multi
Çetinoğlu et al. (2016)
2016
EVAL_ANALYSIS
OTHER
multi
Lyu et al. (2013a)
2013
EVAL_ANALYSIS
LID
zh-en
Weller et al. (2022)
2022
RESOURCE
ST
es-en
Liu et al. (2021a)
2021
EVAL_ANALYSIS
LID
multi
Appendix
Table 10: Most-cited papers per direction and modality, part 1 of 6.
Paper
Year
Mechanism
Task
Pair
Analysis — text (cont.)
Das et al. (2022a)
2022
EVAL_ANALYSIS
CLS
bn-en
Lee and Wang (2015)
2015
EVAL_ANALYSIS
CLS
zh-en
Kumaresan et al. (2022)
2021
EVAL_ANALYSIS
CLS
ta-en; ml-en
Santy et al. (2021)
2021
EVAL_ANALYSIS
CLS
multi
Yoo et al. (2025b)
2024
EVAL_ANALYSIS
CLS
multi
Appendix
Table 11: Most-cited papers per direction and modality, part 2 of 6.
Paper
Year
Mechanism
Task
Pair
CM to native — text
Qin et al. (2020)
2020
AUG_SUB
NLU
multi
Song et al. (2019)
2019
AUG_SUB
MT
ru-en; zh-en
Liu et al. (2019)
2019
AUG_SUB
NLU
multi
Yang et al. (2020a)
2020
PRETRAIN
LM
multi
Zhang et al. (2021b)
2021
AUG_SUB
CLS
multi
Appendix
Table 12: Most-cited papers per direction and modality, part 3 of 6.
Paper
Year
Mechanism
Task
Pair
Native to CM — speech (cont.)
Winata et al. (2020)
2020
FINETUNE
ASR
zh-en
Zhou et al. (2020a)
2020
MONO_DATA
ASR
zh-en
Dalmia et al. (2021)
2020
MULTITASK
ASR
zh-en
Li and Fung (2013)
2013
AUG_SYN
ASR
–
Luo et al. (2018)
2018
MULTITASK
ASR
zh-en
Appendix
Table 13: Most-cited papers per direction and modality, part 4 of 6.
Paper
Year
Mechanism
Task
Pair
Native to CM — speech (cont.)
Paik et al. (2026b)
2026
ADAPT_MERGE
ASR
multi
Changsong et al. (2023)
2023
FINETUNE
SEQ
id-en; ms-en
Liang et al. (2022b)
2022
ADAPT_MERGE
ASR
zh-en
Lee et al. (2025b)
2025
PRETRAIN
LID
multi
Huang et al. (2021)
2021
MULTITASK
ASR
zh-en
Appendix
Table 14: Most-cited papers per direction and modality, part 5 of 6.
Paper
Year
Mechanism
Task
Pair
Native to CM — text (cont.)
Choudhary et al. (2023)
2018
EMBED_ALIGN
CLS
hi-en
Guellil et al. (2018b)
2018
RESOURCE
CLS
ar-arq
Zhang et al. (2024)
2024
FINETUNE
MT
multi
Sai and Sharma (2021)
2021
PIPELINE_MAP
CLS
multi
Muller et al. (2020)
2020
FINETUNE
SEQ
ar-fr
Appendix
Table 15: Most-cited papers per direction and modality, part 6 of 6.
Code-switch (CS) Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) remains challenging due to limited availability of high quality CS text-speech pairs for training. Although synthetic data augmentation via Text-to-speech (TTS) has been explored, existing CS TTS approaches primarily optimise reconstruction fidelity and do not explicitly enforce language-boundary consistency, thereby limiting their effectiveness for CS ASR augmentation. This paper proposes a code-mixing guided preference-learning framework that steers synthetic speech generation toward improved code-switching fidelity using the Code Mixing Index (CMI). Experiments on the SEAME Mandarin-English conversational corpus demonstrate that the proposed method enhances the utility of synthetic data for ASR fine-tuning. Specifically, when fine-tuning Whisper Large, the proposed approach reduces Mixed Error Rate (MER) from 12.1%/17.8% to 8.9%/14.2% on the DevMAN and DevSGE sets, respectively.
Yue Heng Yeo, Haoyang Li, Yizhou Peng +6
College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · HLT-COE & CLSP, Johns Hopkins University, USA · Institute for Infocomm Research (I2R), A⋆STAR, Singapore +1
Multilingual encoder-based language models are widely used for code-mixed analysis, yet their internal representations of code-mixed inputs -- and their relationship to the constituent languages -- remain poorly understood. Using Hindi-English as a case study, we construct a unified trilingual corpus of parallel English, Hindi (Devanagari), and Romanized code-mixed sentences. We then probe cross-lingual representation alignment in standard multilingual encoders and their code-mix-adapted variants using CKA, token-level saliency, and entropy-based uncertainty analysis. We find that while standard models align English and Hindi well, code-mixed inputs remain loosely connected to either language -- and that continued pre-training on code-mixed data improves English-code-mixed alignment at the cost of English-Hindi alignment. Interpretability analyses further reveal a clear asymmetry: models process code-mixed text through an English-dominant semantic subspace, while native-script Hindi provides complementary signals that reduce representational uncertainty. Motivated by these findings, we introduce a trilingual post-training alignment objective that brings code-mixed representations closer to both constituent languages simultaneously, yielding more balanced cross-lingual alignment and downstream gains on sentiment analysis and hate speech detection -- showing that grounding code-mixed representations in their constituent languages meaningfully helps cross-lingual understanding. Code is available at: https://github.com/debajyotimaz/tri_align_EMNLP_2026.
Code-switching is pervasive in bilingual African conversation, yet most ASR systems assume monolingual input and are evaluated on curated monolingual benchmarks. We present AfriSwitch, a 61.36-hour human-transcribed benchmark of in-the-wild code-switched speech spanning 16 African languages and language varieties, released with switch-level English span tags, perutterance Code-Mixing Index (CMI), and switch-point counts. Corpus statistics show that mixing behaviour varies widely across African languages along two largely independent axes: how often speakers alternate, and how balanced the mixture is. No single scalar captures how code-switched a language is. Benchmarking five open and commercial multilingual ASR systems zero-shot yields word error rates far above published monolingual figures for the same languages, with the best system averaging 35.93% WER and no system falling below 24% on any language. Africa-targeted training, not model scale or nominal language coverage, best predicts performance.