Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T05:37:15.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The future of code mixing research: Integrating psycholinguistic and formal grammatical theories*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 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 60208USAmatt-goldrick@northwestern.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our keynote article “Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing” (Goldrick, Putnam & Schwarz) aimed to provide a framework that would begin to unify psycholinguistic and formal grammatical approaches to code mixing. We situated our account within a large body of psycholinguistic and phonetic evidence suggesting that, under many conditions, multiple representational elements simultaneously occupy (to varying degrees) a single position within a linguistic structure. The presence of such blends in multilingual cognition is not compatible with many formal grammatical approaches that assume mental representations are necessarily discrete.

Keywords

Code mixingGradient Symbolic Computation
Type
Authors response
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , November 2016 , pp. 903 - 906
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

*

This research was supported by NSF grant BCS1344269.

References

Bhatt, R. M. Coactivation: The portmanteau constructions in bilingual grammar. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000146.Google Scholar
Brehm, L., & Goldrick, M. (submitted). Distinguishing discrete and gradient category structure in language: Insights from verb-particle constructions. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. Fusing languages in the bilingual cognitive architecture. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000109.Google Scholar
Chan, B.-H. (2015). Portmanteau constructions, phrase structure and linearization. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1851. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01851 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. M. (Eds.) Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Deuchar, M., & Biberauer, T. Doubling: An error or an illusion? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000043.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. H (Ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 133–177). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., & Larson, M. (2010). Constraints on the acquisition of variation. In Fougeron, C., Kuhnert, B., D'Imperio, M. & Vallee, N. (Eds.) Laboratory Phonology 10: Variation, phonetic detail and phonological representation (pp. 285–310). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Putnam, M. T., & Schwarz, L. (2016). Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728915000802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, M., Runnqvist, E., & Costa, A. (2014). Language switching makes pronunciation less native-like. Psychological Science, 25, 1031–1036.Google Scholar
Green, D., & Li, W. Code-switching and language control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000018.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M., & Parafita Couto, M. C. An integrated perspective on code-mixing patterns beyond doubling? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000080.Google Scholar
Hicks, C. (2010). Morphosyntactic doubling in code switching. MA thesis, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. Constraints on variation, reduplication of semantics, and degrees of freedom: Some notes on the computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000092.Google Scholar
López, L. Questions on data and the input to GEN. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000079.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. Bilingual complexes: The perspectives of the Gradient Symbolic Computation framework. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000031.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Torres Cacoullos, R. Data before models. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000067.Google Scholar
Putnam, M., & Goldrick, M. (submitted). The good, the bad, and the gradient: The role of ‘losers’ in code-switching. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University and Northwestern University.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
Sorace, A. Language and cognition in bilingual production: Will GPS show us the road ahead? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000110.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.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., Cohen, C., & Grey, S. Testing tolerance for lexically-specific factors in Gradient Symbolic Computation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000122.Google Scholar
Veríssimo, J. Extending a Gradient Symbolic approach to the native versus non-native contrast: The case of plurals in compounds. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000134.Google Scholar