almohada añillo calabaza calcetÃn cama carteracuchara curita espejo fresa globo ... pluma puerta queso techo tenedor trapeador uvas zapato. 0.0. 0.2. 0.4. 0.5.
The Effect of Lexical Accessibility on Spanish-English Codeswitching Justin T. Sarkis, Jessica L. Montag, and Judith F. Kroll Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA SENTENCE PRODUCTION TASK
BACKGROUND
SPEAKING DURATION RESULTS
For some bilinguals, codeswitching is a common part of everyday language experience, and it is often a feature of skilled language use.
A different group of English-Spanish bilinguals described an array of pictures in Spanish. This task was designed to elicit codeswitches in the laboratory.
Words with a higher naming proportion in English on the lexical accessibility assessment had longer speaking durations on un-codeswitched trials when switching was permitted and when switching was not permitted.
Bilingual listeners are sensitive to patterns of codeswitching. 1, 2, 3
Condition 1: Codeswitching into English permitted • 27 Spanish-English bilingual undergraduates at UCR • EN proficiency: 9.3 (1.0) • SP proficiency: 7.4 (1.3)
There was no effect of initiation latency on codeswitching and no correlation with the naming proportion of words in English.
Grammatical constraints influence choices about codeswitching choices and phonetic realization of speech prior to a codeswitch. 1, 3 Studies of sentence production suggest a role for lexical availability in modulating the form of spoken sentences. 4, 5
Condition 1: Codeswitching permitted, but no codeswitches β = 0.242, SE = 0.100, t = 2.500, p = .014
Condition 2: Codeswitching into English not permitted • 31 Spanish-English bilingual undergraduates at UCR • EN proficiency: 8.8 (1.1) • SP proficiency: 7.8 (1.2)
15
Speaking Duration (s)
What factors influence the choices that bilinguals make as they plan speech?
“Cuéntame sobre el tenedor”
In the present study, we test the hypothesis that bilinguals are more likely to switch languages to produce words that are more lexically accessible in their other language.
[Tell me about the fork] ”El tenedor está debajo de la ball/pelota”
Task Different groups of speakers named pictures in either English or Spanish. We selected pictures that had high name agreement in both languages.
bone bone bone bone bone
sofa sofa sofa couch
r = .64
● ● ●
●
●● ●
● ●
● ● ●●
●
ala
●
güante
●
●
cartera cuchara globo ●
0.6
0.7
Prop. Words Named in English TIMING RESULTS
0.4 0.3
Initiation Latency (s)
0.2
Condition 1 Condition 2 1.12 (0.67) -
CS no CS
1.10 (0.48)
1.09 (0.47)
●
●
● ● ● ● ●
●
●
0.6
● ●
0.7
Speaking Duration (s) Condition 1 CS 7.07 (3.05)
Condition 2 -
3.61 (1.53)
3.60 (1.89)
no CS
●
●
r = .19 ●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
● ● ●
●●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
0.6
● ● ●●
●
● ● ●
●
● ●
● ●
0.7
It may, therefore, play a key role in when and where bilingual speakers codeswitch during sentence production, influencing sentence form. Studies1 suggest that comprehenders use subtle cues to predict upcoming codeswitches. Our results may help explain how these distributions arise, from producer constraints. Limitations • Is this just lexical borrowing? All bilinguals could name these items in Spanish in the preliminary norming study, suggesting that the choice of English in switching was not due to lack of Spanish knowledge. Participants self-reported growing up speaking Spanish and as currently using Spanish daily. •
Are low Spanish proficiency speakers driving the effect? The effect of English naming proportion on speaking durations was stronger for lower proficiency Spanish speakers. This effect could be due to proficiency or to greater variability captured by low proficiency speakers.
•
Is this due to uneven SP and EN proficiency? The small sample size makes it difficult to eliminate an alternative hypothesis that the proficiency may have produced a reliance on the more dominant English. The small percentage of switches suggests that this is unlikely, but it will be important to rule out other contributing factors.
0.6 0.5
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
Lexical accessibility predicted the items on which speakers were more or less likely to switch from Spanish to English and predicted speaking duration, both when speakers did not codeswitch and when codeswitching was not allowed.
papá ●
● hueso ● techo ● lápiz pluma tenedor mesa● almohada queso zapato● piña ● ●espejo ● cama calcetín huevo naranja manzana ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● 0.0 ● luna pan mochila libro añillo pastel uvas pelota fresa puerta muñeca
0.7
● ●
DISCUSSION
calabaza lámpara ●
plancha ●
0.5
●●
●
Prop. Words Named in English
patineta ●
0.2
● ● ●
hongo● ●
0.8
naranja/orange mochila/backpack puerta/door libro/book queso/cheese manzana/apple plancha/iron añillo/ring luna/moon zapato/shoe mesa/table pluma/pen pelota/ball hueso/bone cama/bed muñeca/doll piña/pineapple techo/roof calcetín/sock tenedor/fork uvas/grapes espejo/mirror güante/glove fresca/strawberry huevo/egg lápiz/pencil pan/bread almohada/pillow trapeador/mop ala/wing lámpara/flashlight cartera/wallet papá/potato calabaza/pumpkin patineta/skateboard pastel/cake cuchara/spoon globo/balloon curita/bandaid hongo/mushroom
●
● ●
0.5
curita ●
0.9 Prop. Words Named in English
3
Condition 1: Codeswitching permitted β = 1.494, SE = 0.319, z = 4.677, p < .001
Switch Proportion
Task A group of speakers had the choice to name the selected pictures in either English or Spanish.
●
●
●
●
6
Words with a higher naming proportion in English on the lexical accessibility assessment were also more likely to be switched into English on the sentence production task.
0.4
SD = 0.8 SD = 1.2
5
● ●
β = 0.372, SE = 0.116, t = 3.198, p = .002
Overall codeswitch: 10.88%
trapeador
EN proficiency M = 9.2 SP proficiency M = 8.1
●
9
●
Participants 31 Spanish-English bilingual undergraduates at UCR
●●
●
Condition 2: Codeswitching not permitted
CODESWITCHING RESULTS
couch
ASSESSMENT OF LEXICAL ACCESSIBILITY
●
●
●
Prop. Words Named in English
Prediction Words that were more often named in English will elicit more codeswitches in the sentence production task.
SD = 0.9 SD = 1.4
●
[The fork is below the ball]
Speaking Duration (s)
M = 9.3 M = 8.0
●
0.5
PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF MATERIALS
EN proficiency SP proficiency
r = .14
10
Task
Participants 21 Spanish-English bilingual undergraduates at UCR
●
1Fricke
REFERENCES
et al (2015), JML, 89, 110-137. 2Beatty-Martinez & Dussias (2017), JML, 95, 173-189. 3Tamargo et al, (2016), JML, 89, 138-161. 4Bock (1987), JML, 26, 119-137. 5Bock (1986), JEP:LMC, 12, 575-586.
