Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 10:1 (2020) ► pp.5–34

The good, the bad, and the gradient

The role of losers in code-switching

ORCID logo | Penn State University / Center for Language Science
| Penn State University / Center for Language Science
Although formal analyses of code-switching have enjoyed some success in determining which structures and interfaces are more fertile environments for switches than others, research exposing recalcitrant counter-examples to proposed constraints and axioms responsible for governing code-switching is abound. We advance the claim here that sub-optimal representations, i.e., losers , stand to reveal important information regarding the interaction of grammatical principles and processing strategies of bilingual speakers and that any comprehensive analysis of code-switching phenomena should include them. These losers are the result of gradient activation in both input and output forms. We demonstrate how the formalism Gradient Symbolic Computation (GSC; Smolensky et al., 2014) can account for both of these observed facets of bilingual grammars in a unified manner. Building upon the work of Goldrick et al. (2016a,b), we provide an analysis of mixed determiner phrases (DPs) as an example of the fundamental components of a GSC-analysis.
Keywords: code-switching, dual activation, Gradient Symbolic Computation (GSC)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Gradient Symbolic Computation (GSC) and the role of losers
  • 3.The distinction between mixes and blends in GSC
  • 4.Conclusion: Why losers matter
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.16008.put
References (74)
References
Backus, A. (1992). Patterns of language mixing: A study of Turkish-Dutch bilingualism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Badiola, L., Delgado, R., Sande, A., & Stefanich, S. (2017). Code-switching attitudes and their effects on acceptability judgment tasks. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(5).Google Scholar
Beatty-Martínez, A. & Dussias, P. (2015). Mapping pictures, switching strategies: An analysis of code-switching production patterns. Poster. Programa Graduado de Lingüística: Universidad de Puerto Rico, Río Piedras.Google Scholar
Belazi, H. M., Rubin, E. J., & Toribio, A. J. (1994). Code-switching and X-bar theory: The Functional Head Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry, 251, 221–237.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. (1997). Code-switching, constraints, and optimal grammars. Lingua, 1021, 223–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Argument licensing in optimal switches. In: J. MacSwan (Ed.), Grammatical theory and bilingual codeswitching (pp. 135–158). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(4), 539–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, A. W. (2006). Variation as accessing ‘non-optimal’ candidates. Phonology, 23(3), 337–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning fast. Cognition, 106(2), 1047–1058. DOI logoGoogle 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, 261, 1283–1296.Google Scholar
Crocker, M. & Keller, F. (2005). Probabilistic grammars as models of gradience in language processing. In: G. Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 227–245). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: Modeling section and control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 17–32.Google Scholar
Dell, G. (1995). Speaking and missspeaking. In: L. R. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science (2nd edition) Volume 1: Language (pp. 183–208). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deuchar, M. & Biberauer, T. (2016). Doubling: An error or an illusion? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(5), 881–882. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M., Muysken, P., & Singh, R. (1986). Government and code-mixing. Journal of Linguistics, 221, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Döpke, S. (2001). The interplay between language-specific development and cross-linguistic influence. In: S. Döpke (Ed.), Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, S. & Koronkiewicz, B. (2017). Monolingual stimuli and the analysis of code-switching. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(5).Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2004). The decathlon model of empirical syntax. In: S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence (pp. 187–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Beilock, S. L. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 5(6), 664–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, M. (2011). Linking speech errors and generative phonological theory. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5/61, 397–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, M., Putnam, M., & Schwarz, L. (2016a). Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(5), 857–876. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). The future of code mixing research: Integrating psycholinguistic and formal grammatical theories. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(5), 903–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., & Goldrick, M. (2016). Grammar constraints on language switching: Control is not just executive control. Journal of Memory and Language, 901, 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M. & Parfita Couto, M. C. (2016). An integrated perspective on code-mixing patterns beyond doubling? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(5), 885–886. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Pickering, M. J. (2008). Language interaction in bilingual sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 1281, 479–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J., Cohen, C., & Grey, S. (2016). Testing tolerance for lexically-specific factors in Gradient Symbolic Computation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(5), 897–899. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J., Fernandez, C. B., Kootstra, G. J., Litcofsky, K. A., & Ting, C. Y. (2017). Electrophysiological and experimental-behavioral approaches to the study of intra-sentential code-switching. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(5).Google Scholar
Hernandez-Pina, F. (1984). Teorías psicosociolingüísticas y su aplicación del español como lengua materna [Psycholinguistic theories and their application to the acquisition of Spanish as a native language]. Siglo XXI, Madrid.Google Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(3), 213–229.Google Scholar
Hsin, L. (2014). Integrated bilingual grammatical architecture: Insights from syntactic development. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A. (1985). Processing of sentences with intrasentential code switching. In: D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.) Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 190–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keeler, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
(2003). A probabilistic parser as a model of global processing difficulty. In: R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 646–51). Boston.Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Asudeh, A. (2002). Probabilistic learning algorithms and optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(2), 225–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kootstra, G. J. (2015). A psycholinguistic perspective on code-switching: Lexical, structural, and socio-interactive processes. In: G. Stell & K. Yakpo (Eds.), Code-switching between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 39–64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kootstra, G. J., van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2009). Two speakers, one dialogue. An interactive alignment perspective on code-switching in bilingual speakers. In: L. Isurin, D. Winford, & K. de Bot (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Code Switching (pp. 129–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodnieka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 91, 119–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Gollan, H. (2014). Speech planning in two languages: What bilinguals tell us about language production. In M. Goldrick, V. Ferreira, & M. Miozzo (eds.) The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 165–181). Oxford: Oxford University 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. & Schindler, M. (2010). Code switching in Urban Wolof: A case for violable constraints in syntax. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem-ReVEL, 81, 47–75.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Putnam, M., de Swart, H., & Zaroukian, E. (2016). Introduction. In: G. Legendre, M. Putnam, H. de Swart, & E. Zaroukian (Eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bi-direction optimization (pp. 1–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., Müller de Quadros, R. & Pichler, D. C. (2016). The development of bimodal bilingualism: implications for linguistic theory. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(6), 719–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 61, 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marull, C. (2015). Syntactic position constrains cross-linguistic activation. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(2), 153–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Pater, J. (Eds). (2016). Harmonic grammar and harmonic serialism. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Meilinger, A., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Parallel processing in language production. Language, Cognition & Neuroscience, 291, 663–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Dueling languages: Grammatical structure in code-switching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism. Language and Cognition, 161, 709–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishumura, M. (1986). Inter-sentential code-switching: The case of language assignment. In: J. Vaid (Ed.), Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives (pp. 123–143). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R. & Lapidus, N. (2003). An adaptive approach to noun gender in New York Contact Spanish. In: R. Cameron, L. López, & R. Núñez Cedeño (Eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use (pp. 209–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçaliskan, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is the cutting edge of early language development. Cognition, 96(3), 101–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parafita Couto, M. C., Munarriz, A., Epelde, I., Deuchar, M., & Oyharçabal, B. (2015). Gender conflict resolution in Spanish-Basque mixed DPs. Bilingualism. Language and Cognition, 18(2), 304–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parafita Couto, M. C. & Gullberg, M. (under review). Code-switching within the noun phrase – Evidence from three corpora.
Pater, J. (2009). Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science, 331, 999–1035. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. & Dalious, J. (1998). The acquisition of Spanish interrogative inversion. Hispanic Linguistics, 10(1), 84–114.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en Español: towards a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 181, 581–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., Wheeler, S., & Westwood, A. (1989). Distinguishing language-contact phenomena: evidence from Finnish-English bilingualism. World Englishes, 81, 389–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. & Torres Cacoullos, R. (2016). Data before models. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(5), 893–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poulisse, N. & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 151, 36–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M., Legendre, G., & Smolensky, P. (2016). How constrained in language mixing in bi- and uni-modal production? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(6), 812–816. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen, E. (2016). Predicting the unpredictable: Capturing the apparent semi-regularity of rendaku voicing in Japanese through Harmonic Grammar. In: E. Clem, V. Dawson, A. Shen, A. H. Skilton, G. Bacon, A. Cheng, & E. H. Maier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 135–150). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E., & Teakston, A. (2005). The incidence of error in young children’s wh-questions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(2), 384–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., Poplack, S., & Vannianiarajan, S. (1990). The case of the nonce loan in Tamil. Language Variation and Change, 21, 71–101. DOI logoGoogle 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, 381, 1102–1138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, P. & Goldrick, M. (2016). Gradient Symbolic Representations in grammar: The case of French Liasion. ROA-1286: [URL] (Accessed, November 2, 2016).
Soriente, A. (2007). Cross-linguistic and cognitive structures in the acquisition of wh-questions in an Indonesian-Italian bilingual child. In: I. Kecskes & L. Albertazzi (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of bilingualism (pp. 325–262). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smallwood, C. (1997). Strong continuity, UG, and the Minimalist Program: An account of the optimal infinitive stage in child language. Unpublished manuscript. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., López, L., Parafita Couto, M. C., & Párraga, C. A. (2017). Using two-alternative forced choice tasks and Thurstone’s Law of Comparative Judgment for acceptability judgments: Examining the Adjacency Condition in Spanish/English code-switched sentences. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(5).Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language, 28(1), 127–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valdés Kroff, J. R. (2016). Mixed NPs in Spanish-English bilingual speech: Using a corpus-based approach to inform models of sentence processing. In: R. E. Guzzardo Tamargo, C. Mazak, & M. C. Parafita Couto (Eds.), Spanish-English codeswitching in the Caribean and the U.S. (pp. 281–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valdés Kroff, J. R., Dussias, P. E., Gerfen, C., Perrotti, L., & Bajo, M. T. (2016). Experience with code-switching modulates the use of grammatical gender during sentence processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R. (2006). Degraded acceptability and markedness in syntax, and the stochastic interpretation of Optimality Theory. In: G. Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 246–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Putnam, Michael T. & Åshild Søfteland
2022. Mismatches at the syntax-semantics interface: The case of non-finite complementation in American Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 45:3 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Perez-Cortes, Silvia, Michael T. Putnam & Liliana Sánchez
2019. Differential Access: Asymmetries in Accessing Features and Building Representations in Heritage Language Grammars. Languages 4:4 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Munarriz-Ibarrola, Amaia, Maria del Carmen Parafita Couto & Emma Vanden Wyngaerd
2018. Methodologies for intra-sentential code-switching research. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Putnam, Michael T., Matthew Carlson & David Reitter
2018. Integrated, Not Isolated: Defining Typological Proximity in an Integrated Multilingual Architecture. Frontiers in Psychology 8 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.