Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:51:59.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2016

MATTHEW GOLDRICK ,
MICHAEL PUTNAM  and
LARA SCHWARZ
MATTHEW GOLDRICK*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
MICHAEL PUTNAM
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
LARA SCHWARZ
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
Address for correspondence: Matthew Goldrick, Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University, 2016 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A large body of research into bilingualism has revealed that language processing is fundamentally non-selective; there is simultaneous, graded co-activation of mental representations from both of the speakers’ languages. An equally deep tradition of research into code switching/mixing has revealed the important role that grammatical principles play in determining the nature of bilingual speech. We propose to integrate these two traditions within the formalism of Gradient Symbolic Computation. This allows us to formalize the integration of grammatical principles with gradient mental representations. We apply this framework to code mixing constructions where an element of an intended utterance appears in both languages within a single utterance and discuss the directions it suggests for future research.

Keywords

code mixingGradient Symbolic Computationdoubling constructions
Type
Keynote Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , November 2016 , pp. 857 - 876
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We gratefully acknowledge Matt Carlson, María del Carmen Parafita Couto, Brian Hok-Shing Chan, Margaret Deuchar, Jane Grimshaw, Géraldine Legendre, John Lipski, Akira Omaki, Shana Poplack, Liliana Sánchez, Paul Smolensky, Colin Wilson, and Masaya Yoshida for helpful comments and discussion. This research was supported by NSF grant BCS1344269.

References

Abels, K. (2003) Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut-Storrs.Google Scholar
Amengual, M. (2012). Interlingual influence in bilingual speech: Cognate status effect in a continuum of bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 517–530.Google Scholar
Azuma, S. (1993). Word order vs. word class: portmanteau sentences in bilinguals. In Clancy, P.M. (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 2 (pp. 193–204). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Backus, A. (1992). Patterns of language mixing: a study of Turkish-Dutch bilingualism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Balukas, C., & Koops, C. (in press). Spanish–English bilingual voice onset time in spontaneous code-switching. International Journal of Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M., & van der Ham, M. (eds.) (2008). Syntax and semantics 36: Microvariation in syntactic doubling. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Belazi, H. M., Rubin, E. J., & Toribio, A. J. (1994). Code switching and X-Bar theory: the Functional head constraint. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 221–237.Google Scholar
Berk, L. M. (1999) English syntax: From word to discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. (1997). Code-switching, constraints, and optimal grammars. Lingua, 102, 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M. (2010). Happen can't hear: An analysis of code-blends in hearing, native signers of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 11, 205–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokamba, E. (1988). Code-mixing, language variation, and linguistic theory: Evidence from Bantu languages. Lingua, 76, 21–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2000). Optimal syntax. In Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, F., & van de Weijer, J. (eds.) Optimality theory: phonology, syntax and acquisition (pp. 334–385). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., & Vogel, R. (eds.) (2013). Linguistic derivations and filtering: Minimalism and optimality theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Carnie, A. (2010). Constituent structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chametzky, R. (2000). Phrase structure: From GB to minimalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
Chan, B. H.-S. (2003). Aspects of the syntax, the pragmatics, and the production of code-switching, with special reference to Cantonese-English. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chan, B. H.-S. (2008). Code-switching, word order and the lexical/functional category distinction. Lingua, 118, 777–809.Google Scholar
Chan, B. H.-S. (2009). Code-switching between typologically distinct languages. In: Bullock, B. & Toribio, A.J. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 182–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures of government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Coppock, E. (2010). Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296.Google Scholar
Deuchar, M. (2005). Congruence and Welsh-English codeswitching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M., Muysken, P., & Singh, R. (1986). Government and code-mixing. Journal of Linguistics, 22, 1–24.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., & Gollan, T. H. (2008). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 43–61.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1991). Age of learning affects the authenticity of voice-onset time (VOT) in stop consonants produced in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 395–411.Google Scholar
Furukawa, T. (2008). Head/complement relations: Portmanteau code-switching between Japanese and English. Language and Information Science 6 (pp. 283–292). Tokyo: University of Tokyo, Institute for Integrated Cultural Studies, Division of Language Information Science.Google Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Sociolinguistic factors in code-switching. In Bullock, B.E. & Toribio, A.J. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 97–113). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M. (2011). Utilizing psychological realism to advance phonological theory. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edition (pp. 631–660). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, M. (2012). Neural network models of speech production. In Faust, M. (Ed.) Handbook of the neuropsychology of language (vol. 1, Language processing in the brain: Basic science, pp. 125–145). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., & Chu, K. (2014). Gradient co-activation and speech error articulation: Comment on Pouplier and Goldstein (2010). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 452–458.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Runnqvist, E., & Costa, A. (2014). Language switching makes pronunciation less native-like. Psychological Science, 25, 1031–1036.Google Scholar
Goldwater, S., & Johnson, M. (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. In Spenader, J., Eriksson, A., Dahl, Ö. (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on variation within Optimality Theory (pp. 111–120). Stockholm, England: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1997). Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2001). Economy of structure in OT. ROA-434, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2013). Last resorts: A typology of do-support. In Broekhuis, H. & Vogel, R. (eds.) Linguistic derivations and filtering: Minimalism and Optimality Theory (pp. 267–295). United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, P. (1996). Do-support in Korean: Evidence for an interpretive morphology. In Ahn, H.-D., M.-Y. Kang, Kim, Y.-S., & Lee, S. (eds.) Morphosyntax in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1996 Seoul international conference on generative grammar (pp. 169–180). Seoul, South Korea: Hankuk Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish–English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, B. (2009). MaxEnt Grammar Tool [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/MaxentGrammarTool.Google Scholar
Hayes, B., & Wilson, C. (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 379–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, C. (2010). Morphosyntactic doubling in code switching. MA thesis, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Hicks, C. (2012). A dual-structure analysis of morphosyntactic doubling in code switching. In Ross, D. (Ed.) Studies in the linguistic sciences: Illinois working papers 2012 (pp. 44–57). http://hdl.handle.net/2142/35295.Google Scholar
Hsin, L., Legendre, G., & Omaki, A. (2013). Priming cross-linguistic interference in Spanish–English bilingual children. In Baiz, S., Goldman, N., & Hawkes, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 37th annual Boston university conference on language development (pp. 165–77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. (2008). Preposition reduplication in Icelandic. In Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M., & van der Ham, M. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 36: Microvariation in syntactic doubling (pp. 403–417). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. (1985). Processing of sentences with intrasentential code switching. In Dowty, D. R., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A. M. (eds.) Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 190–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kootstra, G., van Hell, J., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 210–231.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Gollan, H. (2014). Speech planning in two languages: What bilinguals tell us about language production. In Goldrick, M., Ferreira, V., & Miozzo, M. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 165–181). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, J. (2003). Optimality-theoretic syntax - A declarative approach. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Legendre, G. (2001). An introduction to optimality theory in syntax. In Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., & Vikner, S. (eds.). Optimality-theoretic syntax (pp. 1–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., & Vikner, S. (eds.) (2001). Optimality-theoretic syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Miyata, Y., & Smolensky, P. (1990). Harmonic Grammar – A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 388–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Putnam, M., de Swart, H., & Zaroukian, E. (in press-a). Introduction. In Legendre, G., Putnam, M., De Swart, H., & Zaroukian, E. (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Putnam, M., de Swart, H., & Zaroukian, E. (eds.) (in press-b). Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., & Schindler, M. (2010). Code switching in Urban Wolof: A case for violable constraints in syntax. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem-ReVEL, 8, 47–75.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Wilson, C., Smolensky, P., Homer, K., & Raymond, W. (1995). Optimality and wh–Extraction. In Beckman, J., Urbanczyck, S., & Walsh, L. (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18, pp. 607–636). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. (2013). Generative grammar and language mixing. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacSwan, J. (1999). A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching: Spanish-Nahuatl bilingualism in Central Mexico. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacSwan, J. (2000). The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from intrasentential code switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 37–54.Google Scholar
Mahootian, S. (1993). A null theory of code-switching. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Melinger, A., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Parallel processing in language production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 663–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menn, L., & Duffield, C. J. (2013). Aphasias and theories of linguistic representation: representing frequency, hierarchy, constructions, and sequential structure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 651–663.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (1995). Code-switching and grammatical theory. In Milroy, L. & Muysken, P. (eds.) One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching (pp. 177–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2013). Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 709–730.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Dueling languages: Grammatical structure in code-switching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. J. (1995). Nonfinite verbs and negotiating bilingualism in codeswitching: Implications for a language production model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, M. (1986). Intrasentential code-switching: The case of language assignment. In Vaid, J. (Ed.), Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives (pp. 123–143). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Olson, D. J. (2013). Bilingual language switching and selection at the phonetic level: Asymmetrical transfer in VOT production. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 407–420.Google Scholar
Pater, J. (2009). Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science, 33, 999–1035.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., Wheeler, S., & Westwood, A. (1989). Distinguishing language-contact phenomena: evidence from Finnish–English bilingualism. World Englishes, 8, 389–406.Google Scholar
Porterie-Gutierrez, L. (1988). Étude linguistique de l’aymara septentrional (Pérou-Bolivie) ( = Thèse Amerindia). Paris: A.E.A. Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical report TR-2, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Technical report CU-CS-696–93, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder. Revised version, 2002: ROA-537, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu. Published 2004, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pyers, J. E., & Emmorey, K. (2008). The face of bimodal bilingualism grammatical markers in American Sign Language are produced when bilinguals speak to English monolinguals. Psychological Science, 19, 531–535.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). A general framework for parallel distributed processing. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 1: Foundations (pp. 110–146). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., Poplack, S., & Vannianiarajan, S. (1990). The case of the nonce loan in Tamil. Language Variation and Change, 2, 71–101.Google Scholar
Sarma, V. M. (1999). Case, agreement and word order: Issues in the syntax and acquisition of Tamil. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Schiffman, H. F. (1999). A reference grammar of spoken Tamil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sells, P. (2001a). Structure, alignment and optimality in Swedish. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
Sells, P. (Ed.) (2001b). Formal and empirical issues in optimality theoretic syntax. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (2006). Computational levels and integrated connectionist/symbolic explanation. In Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G. (eds.), The harmonic mind: From neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar. Vol. 2:, Linguistic and philosophical implications (pp. 503–592). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2006). Formalizing the principles II: Optimization and grammar. In Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G. (eds.), The harmonic mind: From neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar. Vol. 1: Cognitive architecture (pp. 207–234). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., Goldrick, M., & Mathis, D. (2014). Optimization and quantization in gradient symbol systems: A framework for integrating the continuous and the discrete in cognition. Cognitive Science, 38, 1102–1138.Google Scholar
Spalek, K., Hoshino, N., Wu, Y. J., Damian, M., & Thierry, G. (2014). Speaking two languages at once: Unconscious native word form access in second language production. Cognition, 133, 226–231.Google Scholar
Starreveld, P. A., De Groot, A. M. B., Rossmark, B. M. M., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 258–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, T. (1996). Grammatical Hispanisms in Amerindian and Austronesian languages: The other kind of transpacific isoglosses. Amerindia, 21, 137–160.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. (1983). Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 520–536.Google Scholar