Electrophysiological and experimental-behavioral approaches to the study of intra-sentential code-switching

Abstract

A hallmark of bilingual language processing is intra-sentential code-switching. An emergent body of research seeks to understand the intricate neural and cognitive mechanisms that underlie this seemingly effortless skill. In this paper, we discuss electrophysiological and experimental-behavioral research approaches that have been used to study intra-sentential code-switching, and illustrate the use of these techniques by discussing a select number of empirical studies. More specifically, we discuss electrophysiological approaches that are used to study the comprehension of visually and aurally presented code-switched sentences, including the Event-Related brain Potentials (ERPs) method, time-frequency analysis, and approaches to study inter-individual variation in electrophysiological response profiles. This is followed by a discussion of experimental-behavioral techniques to study the comprehension and production of code-switched sentences, including self-paced reading, shadowing, and confederate scripting.

Control Stimuli in Experimental Code-Switching Research

“…Within the study of bilingualism, there are also methodological concerns that pertain specifically to CS. In addition to merely defining the phenomenon, there are a plethora of other issues, including the merits of naturalistic and elicited CS data (MacSwan and McAlister 2010), attitudes toward CS ), CS grammaticality judgment task design (Stadthagen-González et al 2018), and experimental-behavioral techniques regarding CS comprehension and production (van Hell et al 2018), to name a few. Researchers such as Gullberg et al (2009) and González-Vilbazo et al (2013) also provide broader overviews, with the latter highlighting three prominent categories when it comes to methodological issues in CS research: project design, experimental procedure, and participant selection.…”

“…In (3b), the switch occurs within the verb phrase, where the auxiliary verb have is in English and its complement, the past participle, is in Spanish. Although there is debate surrounding the availability of auxiliary verb switches more generally as some have argued that they are all restricted (Belazi et al 1994;Timm 1975), whereas others suggest that progressive-tense switches can and do occur at the auxiliary-participle boundary (Bentahila and Davies 1983;Giancaspro 2015;Guzzardo Tamargo and Dussias 2013;Woolford 1983). Importantly these authors do not disagree when it comes to evidence against switching have/haber in Spanish-English mixed present-perfect sentences.…”

“…Importantly these authors do not disagree when it comes to evidence against switching have/haber in Spanish-English mixed present-perfect sentences. 5 The final set of stimuli included were a set of comparison stimuli of a structure whose grammaticality in Spanish-English CS does not have an officially accepted status in the field (Belazi et al 1994;Bentahila and Davies 1983;Giancaspro 2015;Guzzardo Tamargo and Dussias 2013;Timm 1975;Woolford 1983), present-progressive switches. The ratings from these stimuli can be used to exemplify the usefulness of established control stimuli.…”

From the Field to the Lab: A Converging Methods Approach to the Study of Codeswitching

“…It has been a common practice in studies examining the processing of codeswitched language to recruit bilingual speakers without examining their codeswitching background (e.g., Altarriba et al 1996;Hernandez et al 2001) and to employ experimental stimuli that contain switches that do not necessarily form part of the linguistic repertoire of the bilinguals being tested (for reviews, see Van Hell et al 2015Hell et al , 2018. To illustrate, in an eye-tracking study, Altarriba et al (1996) reported that first fixation durations were longer for high frequency Spanish words in semantically constraining English sentences compared to their English counterparts (5).…”

Attitudes Toward Different Types of Chinese-English Code-Switching

“…These different types of CS are not treated equally by linguists in terms of their theoretical importance and social significance. For example, intrasentential CS is considered to be a hallmark of bilingual language processing and studies of intrasentential CS can contribute to the understanding of neurocognitive mechanism involved in the language switching process (Van Hell, Fernandez, Kootstra, Litcofsky, & Ting, 2018;Van Hell, Litcofsky, & Ting, 2015). Marked and unmarked CS can index different sets of rights and obligations perceived by conversation participants (Myers-Scotton, 1993).…”