Content uploaded by Tamara Gómez Carrero
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tamara Gómez Carrero on Jan 31, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Where the Eye Takes You: The Processing of Gender in Codeswitching
Donde nos lleva el ojo: el procesamiento del género en alternancia de
códigos
RAQUEL FERNÁNDEZ FUERTES
TAMARA GÓMEZ CARRERO
ALEJANDRO MARTÍNEZ
(UNIVERSIDAD DE VALLADOLID)
Codeswitching is a powerful phenomenon to explore how the properties of the two language
systems interact in the bilingual mind. This study focuses on codeswitching as a language
contact situation by analyzing eye-tracking data recorded from a group of L1 Spanish – L2
English bilinguals. More specifically, and given that Spanish-English bilingual communities
have been shown to exhibit an overwhelming tendency to produce determiner-noun switches
(la window / the ventana), we formally explore the directionality of the switch and the type
of implicit gender agreement mechanism in the case of Spanish determiner switches (la/el
window // el/la book). Our results show that Spanish determiner switches as well as gender
non-congruent Spanish determiner switches take significantly longer to process. We interpret
these results in the light of formal proposals on gender representation and of previous
empirical studies and argue that the strength of grammatical gender in the participants’ L1
determines the switching processing costs.
Keywords: English-Spanish codeswitching; grammatical gender; gender agreement; eye-
tracking during reading
La alternancia de códigos posee gran potencial para explorar cómo interactúan dos sistemas
lingüísticos en la mente del bilingüe. Exploramos esta situación de lenguas en contacto a
través de datos de seguimiento ocular de bilingües de español L1 e inglés L2. Dado que las
comunidades bilingües inglés-español muestran una clara tendencia a producir alternancia
entre determinante y nombre (la window / the ventana), desde un punto de vista formal
analizamos la direccionalidad de la alternancia y el tipo de mecanismo de concordancia de
género implícita que se produce en el caso del determinante español (la/el window // el/la
book). Los resultados muestran que se tardan más en procesar tanto la alternancia con
determinante español como la del determinante español sin género analógico. Interpretamos
estos resultados a la luz de propuestas formales de representación del género y
argumentamos que la gramaticalidad del género en la L1 de los participantes determina los
costes de procesamiento en este tipo de alternancia.
Palabras clave: alternancia de códigos inglés-español; género gramatical; concordancia de
género; seguimiento ocular durante la lectura
1. INTRODUCTION
Codeswitching has been used as a window to explore how the properties of the two
language systems interact in the mind of the bilingual (e.g. Jorschick, Quick, Glässer,
RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada
Vol./Núm.: 18/1
Enero-diciembre 2019
Páginas: 1-17
Artículo recibido: 28/10/2019
Artículo aceptado: 13/01/2020
Artículo publicado 30/01/2020
Url: http://www.aesla.org.es/ojs/index.php/RAEL/article/view/363
2
Lieven & Tomasello, 2011; Arnaus, Eichler, Jansen, Patuto & Mller, 2012; Liceras,
Fernández Fuertes & Klassen, 2016; Fairchild & van Hell, 2017; Valdés Kroff, Dussias,
Gerfen, Perrotti & Bajo, 2017; Burkholder, 2018).
In this study we focus on codeswitching as a language contact situation, by
analyzing experimental data elicited via the eye-tracking methodology from a group of
adult bilinguals with Spanish as a first language (L1) and English as a second language
(L2). More specifically, we focus on codeswitching between a determiner and a noun (1),
given that Spanish-English bilingual communities have been shown to exhibit an
overwhelming tendency to produce codeswitching at this grammatical point as the most
common type of intra-sentential codeswitching (e.g. Pfaff, 1979; Poplack, 1980; Liceras,
Fernández Fuertes, Perales, Pérez-Tattam & Spradlin, 2008; Herring, Deuchar, Parafita
Couto & Moro Quintanilla, 2010; Valenzuela, Faure, Ramírez Trujillo, Barski, Pangtay
& Diez, 2012; Valdés Kroff, 2016; Fernández Fuertes & Liceras, 2018; Johns, Valdés
Kroff & Dussias, 2018). We formally explore the directionality of the switch, as in (2),
and the type of implicit gender agreement mechanism in the case of Spanish determiner –
English noun codeswitching, as in (3) and (4).
(1) El hombre ha apagado el fire very quickly
(2) a. la window (Spanish determiner – English noun)
b. the ventana (English determiner – Spanish noun)
(3) a. laF windowF in SP (gender congruent)
b. elM windowF in SP (gender non-congruent; default masculine)
(4) a. elM bookM in SP (gender congruent)
b. laF bookM in SP (gender non-congruent)
[F=feminine; M=masculine; SP=Spanish]
In particular, when codeswitching happens within a Determiner Phrase (DP), the
directionality of the switch can yield two possible options: Spanish determiner + English
noun switches, as in (2a), or English determiner + Spanish noun switches, as in (2b). In
the case of Spanish determiner DP switches, the implementation of a gender agreement
mechanism between the Spanish determiner and the Spanish translation equivalent of the
English noun can result into, at least, three possible structures. Following Otheguy and
Lapidus (2003, 2005), the analogical criterion involves the instantiation of an implicit
gender agreement mechanism by means of which switches like those in (3a) and (4a) are
gender congruent because the Spanish determiner agrees in gender with the Spanish
translation equivalent of the English noun (feminine in (3a) and masculine in (4a)). If the
analogical criterion is not enforced, then a gender non-congruent switch appears and, for
instance, a Spanish masculine determiner combines with an English noun whose
translation equivalent in Spanish is feminine (as in (3b)); or a Spanish feminine
determiner combines with an English noun whose translation equivalent in Spanish is
masculine (as in (4b)). A third option would be the use of masculine as default (Roca,
1989) which, in the case of English-Spanish DP switches, involves the combination of a
Spanish masculine default determiner with an English noun (as in 3b). In order to address
these two issues (i.e. directionality and gender agreement mechanisms) in the case of
English-Spanish switched DPs, we have gathered experimental data from a group of L1
Spanish L2 English adult bilinguals. We have used the eye-tracking methodology which
will allow us to discuss how speakers process Spanish gender in an online reading task.
This article is organized as follows. In section 2, we provide an account on formal
and empirical proposals on codeswitching. Taking previous research as a point of
departure, in section 3 we set the research questions that will guide our analyses. In
3
section 4, we describe the participants as well as the methodology and stimuli we have
used. In section 5, we present the data, the analyses and the results obtained. Finally, in
section 6, we discuss and interpret where the eye has taken us and we comment on future
research.
2. FORMAL AND EMPIRICAL ACCOUNTS ON CODESWITCHING
The same principles that constrain individual grammars have been said to also constrain
codeswitching. This has been argued for both within pre-minimalist premises as well as
within the minimalist program and distributed morphology constructs (e.g. pre-
minimalist premises: Sankoff & Poplack, 1981; Woolford, 1983; DiSciullo, Muysken &
Singh, 1986; Myers-Scotton, 1993, 1997; Belazi, Rubin & Toribio, 1994; among many
others; e.g. minimalist and distributed morphology premises: MacSwan, 1999, 2000,
2009; Liceras et al., 2008; González-Vilbazo & López, 2011; Lohndal, 2013; Alexiadou,
Lohndal, Åfarli & Grimstad, 2015; Lillo-Martin, Müller & Chen Pichler, 2016).
In the analysis of gender in codeswitched determiner-noun structures, different
formal linguistics proposals have been put forward and tested against empirical data in
order to explain the way bilingual grammars interact. Two of these proposals are of
special relevance for the present study: the Grammatical Features Spell-Out Hypothesis
and the Gender Double-Feature Valuation Mechanism.
Liceras, Spradlin and Fernández Fuertes (2005) and Liceras et al. (2008) proposed the
Grammatical Features Spell-out Hypothesis in order to capture the preference for
Spanish determiner switches in the spontaneous production of simultaneous bilingual
children and adults. The Grammatical Features Spell-out Hypothesis reflects how
features are represented in the mind of bilinguals and, more specifically, how the strength
that gender features have in Spanish, as opposed to their absence in English, is in fact
what shapes these simultaneous bilinguals’ preferences when producing switched DPs.
While this hypothesis seems to be guiding the spontaneous production of simultaneous
bilingual children and adults (e.g. Liceras et al., 2005, 2008; Jorschick et al., 2011), the
analyses on experimental judgment data show the speakers’ preference for English
determiner switches (e.g. Liceras et al., 2016; Fernández Fuertes & Liceras, 2018;
Gómez Carrero, Fernández Fuertes & Martínez, 2018).
In the case of on-line experimental data, Litcofsky and van Hell (2017) show that,
although L1 Spanish – L2 English bilingual adults exhibit switching costs in both code-
switching directions in a self-paced reading task, rates were higher when switching from
English into Spanish ((2b) versus (2a)). Opposing results are shown in a picture-naming
task where L1 English – heritage Spanish bilingual adults were slower when confronted
with a Spanish determiner switch ((2a) versus (2b)) (Fairchild & van Hell, 2017).
Processing constraints may be at stake here since spontaneous production and
experimental (judgment or eye-tracking) data are different in nature and could trigger
different mechanisms that make the bilingual speaker resort to other strategies. One such
strategy is what Liceras et al. (2008) referred to as the Gender Double-Feature Valuation
Mechanism when discussing the gender preferences in the judgment of switched DPs.
This strategy formally captures how the two gender features in DPs (i.e. the inherent
gender feature in the noun and the gender agreement feature in the determiner) are valued
and how this valuation is deeply rooted in the mind of (monolingual and bilingual) L1
Spanish speakers. The fact that this valuation process takes place in Spanish DPs makes
these speakers enforce the same strategy in the case of Spanish determiner – English
noun switches which involves the preference for gender congruent (i.e. (3a) and (4a))
versus non-congruent switches (i.e. (3b) and (4b)). In fact, while English-Spanish
4
bilinguals prefer English determiner switches as opposed to Spanish determiner switches
(against the Grammatical Features Spell-out Hypothesis), gender congruent Spanish
determiner switches are found to be favored over English determiner switches in the case
of off-line experimental data (e.g. Liceras et al., 2008; Valenzuela et al., 2012). Spanish
masculine default determiner switches are also favored especially by Spanish non-native
speakers.
When it comes to on-line experimental data, L1 English – heritage Spanish
bilingual adults have been shown to use the gender of the Spanish determiner as a cue for
the anticipation of the upcoming noun in a visual world paradigm task (Valdés-Kroff et
al., 2017). In particular, it seems that there is an asymmetric gender effect in processing
in that only the feminine determiner is exploited as a cue to identify an upcoming noun.
These studies seem to point to two crucial facts in the case of determiner – noun
switches. First, the elicitation technique may be making speakers resort to different
strategies when implementing (or cancelling the implementation of) gender agreement
mechanisms. This may account for the difference between naturalistic and experimental
data. Second, the status gender features have in the mind of the different profiles of
bilingual speakers may be behind their own preferences. This may explain the difference
between L1 Spanish bilinguals and L2 Spanish bilinguals.
In order to shed light into this debate and to address both directionality and gender
agreement mechanisms, we have collected processing data while a group of L1 Spanish –
L2 English adult bilinguals read codeswitched structures. In particular, this study seeks to
offer a double contribution to the studies on languages in contact, in general, and those
on codeswitching, in particular: on the one hand, it sheds further light on the formal
accounts on codeswitching that place the focus on the formal features of the languages
involved in the switch and that attribute the bilingual speakers’ preferences to the
strength these features have in the bilingual mind; and, on the other hand, it contributes
new online data (eye-tracking during reading) which complement data elicited via the
eye-tracking methodology using a different task.
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The specific research questions we set to address are the following two:
1) Which directionality in codeswitched DPs would be easier to process for these
bilinguals? As per the Grammatical Features Spell-out Hypothesis, Spanish
determiner switches (5a) should be processed faster than English determiner
switches (5b). This would also be in line with previous online experimental
studies (Litcofsky & van Hell, 2017). However, if we take into account the type
of data being elicited, English determiner switches should be in fact processed
faster in that no gender agreement valuation mechanism has to be implemented,
as English determiners do not trigger such agreement process.
(5) a. el book
b. the libro
2) Which gender agreement mechanism would be easier to process for these
bilinguals? Given the status of Spanish as the L1 of these bilinguals, switches
abiding by the analogical criterion (6a) may be processed faster as it involves
applying to switched DPs the same type of grammatical mechanism that would
5
apply in the case of Spanish DPs. This involves higher processing costs when
participants encounter a switched DP in which the analogical criterion is violated
(6b). A more economical option in terms of processing would be to use the
masculine as a default option (6c) where the gender valuation mechanism is
underspecified.
(6) a. el book [+AC]
b. la book [-AC]
c. el window masculine default [AC=analogical criterion]
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Participants
A group of 19 L1 Spanish – L2 English bilingual adults from Spain have participated in
this experiment (14 female, 5 male) with a mean age of 27.74 (mode=25; ranging from
18 to 50 years old; SD=9.03). Their proficiency level in English has been measured using
a pen and paper version of the Quick Oxford Placement Test (UCLES, 2001) and their
levels ranged between B2 and C1 as per the Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages. These bilinguals have been born and brought up in Spain in a social
context in which codeswitching is not a common practice. However, potentially all
bilinguals (and not only bilinguals who use codeswitching on a daily basis, that is,
codeswitchers) can codeswitch and have intuitions about switched structures (see
Fernández Fuertes & Liceras, 2018). In fact, what is being investigated is the internal
knowledge these speakers have of their two grammars and how these grammars interact.
4.2 The eye-tracking during reading task: stimuli and procedure
Stimuli consist of 156 items of which 48 are experimental items, 54 are distractors and
54 are fillers. For the target experimental items, there are six conditions, as in (7), which
result in six different lists so that each participant only sees one condition per
experimental item. An example of an experimental is shown in Table 1:
(7) condition AC example
MM [+AC] el book
MF [-AC] el window
FF [+AC] la window
FM [-AC] la book
DM the libro
DF the ventana
[M=masculine; F=feminine; D=English determiner; AC=analogical criterion]
Table 1: Sample item: bookM - windowF
Condition
AC
Target DP
Pre-target
Target
Post-target
MM
[+AC]
el book
El niño está
leyendo
el book
for the first
time
MF
[-AC]
el window
El señor está
arreglando
el window
with a
hammer
FF
[+AC]
la window
El señor está
la window
with a
6
arreglando
hammer
FM
[-AC]
la book
El niño está
leyendo
la book
for the first
time
DM
--
the libro
The boy is
reading
the libro
por primera
vez
DF
--
the ventana
The man is fixing
the ventana
con un
martillo
Each item contains four target nouns, two in English (book and window, as in Table
1 above) and two in Spanish (libro ‘book’ and ventana ‘window’, as in Table 1). In the
case of the English nouns, two appear in DPs where the analogical criterion is enforced
(e.g. el book because el is masculine and book is masculine in Spanish, i.e. libro); and the
other two in DPs where the analogical criterion is not met (e.g. la book). In the case of
the Spanish nouns, one is masculine (e.g. libro ‘book’) and one is feminine (e.g. ventana
‘window’). This yields six experimental sentences per item.
Each experimental sentence is constructed as follows: four pre-target words, two
target words and two to four post-target words. The target DP is in direct object position
and the post-target is an adjunct. The target nouns are [-animate], [+concrete] nouns and
they involve no cognates, no body parts and no words beginning with a vowel in either
language or with an l- in English. The target nouns were selected using the EsPal
database (Duchon, Perea, Sebastián-Gallés, Martí & Carreiras, 2013) and the SUBTLEX-
ESP database (Cuetos, González-Nosti, Barbn & Brysbaert. 2011) for Spanish and the
SUBTLEXus database (Brysbaert & New, 2009) for English. Frequency analyses for the
nouns used in each DP have been performed. An independent, two-tailed t-test for
frequency between masculine and feminine Spanish nouns has shown no significant
results (t (94) = 0.959, p =.345). The same analysis has been performed for the English
words with masculine Spanish translation equivalents and feminine Spanish translation
equivalents which has rendered no significant results (t (94) = -1.144, p =.256).
In order to avoid participants’ perception of what the real task was about, both
distractors and fillers are used. Distractors consist of sentences involving a switch
between a DP subject and the verb. They are eight to ten word long (similar to the length
of experimental sentences) and target nouns are never part of the distractor sentences.
Half of the sentences (n=27) start in English and the other half in Spanish, as shown in
(8):
(8) a. El mono has a banana in its hands
‘The monkey has a banana in its hands’
b. The kids llegan a la escuela en bicicleta
‘The kids get to school by bike’
Fillers are monolingual sentences containing a noun-noun compound. Half of the
sentences (n=27) are in Spanish and the other half in English, as in (9). As with the
distractors, filler sentences are eight to ten word long (similar to the length of
experimental sentences) and target nouns are never part of the filler sentences. The
compound appears in initial, mid or final position and this is balanced across the task.
(9) a. En este árbol los niños encontraron a la abeja reina
‘In this tree the children found the queen bee’
b. The boys saw a pirate flag next to their neighborhood
In order to keep participants’ attention on the task, yes-no comprehension questions
follow half of the fillers (n=27) and half of the distractors (n=27) but never the
7
experimental items. The language of the questions matches the language in which the
sentence ends: if the sentence ends in English, the comprehension question is in English,
as in (10a) and (10c); if in Spanish, the question is in Spanish, as in (10b).
(10) a. Distractor:
El mono has a banana in its hands
Comprehension question: Does the monkey have a banana in its
legs?
Expected answer: NO
b. Distractor:
The kids llegan a la escuela en bicicleta
Comprehension question: ¿Llegan los niños a la escuela en
bicicleta?
‘Do kids get to school by bike?’
Expected answer: YES
c. Filler:
The boys saw a pirate flag next to their neighborhood
Comprehension question: Did the boys see a Viking flag?
Expected answer: NO
Participants have been asked to perform a sentence comprehension task. They have
been tested individually in a quiet room using an EyeLink Portable Duo that sampled eye
movements at 1000 Hz (with the head free-to-move) using the corneal reflection of the
participant’s right eye. Button presses have been recorded using a gamepad response
device. Ethical approval from the University of Valladolid was obtained [protocol
approval ref. PI 19-1461]. Before the task and after a 9-point calibration (average error
below 0.5°), participants have done a practice session to ensure that they have understood
the task. The practice session involves sentences with codeswitching at other
grammatical points different from that of the target. In the practice session, each
participant has read a total of nine sentences, three of which are followed by a yes-no
comprehension question. These questions follow the same language pattern as the
comprehension questions in the main task; that is, sentences ending in English are
followed by a question in English, and those ending in Spanish are followed by a
question in Spanish.
5. EYE-TRACKING DATA ANALYSES: MEASURES AND RESULTS
Three eye-tracking measures have been extracted for the analyses we present below: a)
total fixation duration; b) gaze duration; and c) regression path duration. Total fixation
duration consists on the sum of all fixations in a region, including both forward and
regressive movements; gaze duration is defined as the sum of all fixations in a region,
from first entering the region until leaving that region; and regression path duration is the
sum of all fixations in a target region from first entering the region until moving to the
right of the region, including the fixations made during any regression to earlier parts of
the sentence before moving past the right boundary of the region (Clifton, Staud &
Rayner, 2007). The three measures have been calculated for two interest regions: the first
target region involves the determiner and four characters preceding the determiner; and
the second target region involves the target noun. The first target region has been so
established because the target element in this case (i.e. the determiner) is a very short
8
0
100
200
300
400
EN Det SP Det
*
category in length and it is a functional category. This has a crucial consequence for us:
the processing of the determiner category as such is mostly lost, as some participants did
not even fix on the determiner (46% of exclusion). In order to reduce the rate of
exclusion, we have included the four previous characters to the determiner as part of this
target region because of the potential parafoveal looks participants could make. By doing
so, we have only lost 19% of the data. The significant results obtained per eye-tracking
measure and target region are discussed in detail below. Analyses of pre-target and post-
target regions have also been performed and the results confirm those in the two interest
regions. We address below these results, first focusing on directionality and then on the
gender agreement mechanisms. All the statistical tests were interpreted on a significance
level of 0.05.
In the case of the directionality of the switch (e.g. Spanish determiner + English
noun, as in (5a) above, and English determiner + Spanish noun, as in (5b)), results appear
in Figure 1 to Figure 3 and in Examples (11) below:
(11) a. The boy is reading the libro por primera vez
‘The boy is reading the book for the first time’
b. El niño está leyendo el book for the first time
‘The boy is reading the book for the first time’
When total fixation duration is considered, Figure 1 shows that, when focusing on
the determiner, English determiners are significantly longer fixated (M= 194 ms;
SD=22.21) than Spanish determiners (M= 181ms; SD=29.14), and this is significantly so
(t(18)=2.085, p=.052). That is, English determiner switches seem to be harder to process
when compared to Spanish determiner switches. In the case of the noun, English nouns
are fixated longer (M= 330ms; SD=85.40) than Spanish nouns (M= 359ms; SD=107.23)
but this difference is non-significant (t(18)=-1.887, p=.075).
Figure 1: Directionality and total fixation
duration.
Determiner and noun interest
regions
Figure 2: Directionality and gaze duration.
Determiner interest region
When gaze duration (also referred to as first pass reading time) is considered in the
case of the determiner interest area (Figure 2), the same results appear: English
determiners are longer fixated (M= 234 ms; SD=50.98) than Spanish determiners (M=
0
100
200
300
400
Det N
EN Det + SP N SP Det + EN N
*
9
210 ms; SD=61.49) before any regressive or progressive fixation and this is statistically
significant (t(18)=3.064 p=.007).
For the noun interest area in the case of regression path duration (i.e. go past time)
(Figure 3), results further point to English nouns being significantly longer fixated
(t(18)=3.714, p=.002; English noun: M= 298 ms; SD=64.16; Spanish noun: M= 339 ms;
SD=99.78).
Figure 3: Directionality and regression path duration.
Noun interest region
These data point to clear directionality effects in that English determiner switches,
as in (11a), are harder to process when compared to Spanish determiner switches, as in
(11b), for these speakers.
The analyses corresponding to gender agreement mechanisms, and, in particular to
the analogical criterion (i.e. [+AC], as in (6a) above, versus [-AC], as in (6b)), appear in
Figure 4 to Figure 6 and Examples (12):
(12) a. El niño está leyendo el book for the first time
‘The boy is reading the-masculine book for the first time’
b. El niño está leyendo la book for the first time
‘The boy is reading the-feminine book for the first time’
As in Figure 4, English nouns are significantly longer fixated when there is no
gender congruency between the Spanish determiner and the translation equivalent of the
English noun (i.e. [-AC] DPs; M= 388ms; SD=124.65) when compared to gender-
congruent switches (i.e. [+AC] DPs; M= 331 ms; SD=96.06). ANOVAs reveal this
difference to be significant (F(1,18)=15.928, p=.001). The same result appears in the case
of regression path duration (Figure 5) for the noun interest region (F(1,18)=4.485,
p=.048; [+AC] English noun: M= 324 ms; SD=95.98; [-AC] English noun: M= 355ms;
SD=113.30). No significant differences appear in the case of the determiner.
0
100
200
300
400
SP N EN N
*
10
Figure 4: AC and total fixation duration.
Determiner and noun interest regions
Figure 5: AC and regression path duration.
Noun interest region
However, when focusing on the determiner, gaze duration measures (Figure 6)
show that the difference between [+AC] DPs (English determiner: M= 214 ms;
SD=60.87) and [-AC] DPs (English determiner: M= 205ms; SD=77.80) is non-
significant (F(1,18)=0,302, p=.589).
Figure 6: AC and gaze duration.
Determiner interest region
These data point to an effect of the analogical criterion in that these speakers take
longer to process Spanish determiner switches that are not gender congruent, as in (12b),
when compared to Spanish determiner switches in which gender agreement is enforced
between the Spanish determiner and the translation equivalent of the English noun, as in
(12a).
When considering masculine as a default option in comparison to gender congruent
switches (i.e. [+AC]), the results we obtained are represented in Figure 7 to Figure 9 and
illustrated in Examples (13):
(13) a. El señor está arreglando la window with a hammer
‘The man is fixing the-feminine window with a hammer’
b. El señor está arreglando el window with a hammer
‘The man is fixing the-masculine default window with a hammer’
As in Figure 7, English nouns are significantly longer fixated when the preceding
Spanish determiner is masculine and the Spanish translation equivalent is feminine (i.e.
masculine as default option) (t(18)=2.554; p=.020; [+AC] English noun: M= 331 ms;
0
100
200
300
400
[+AC] [-AC] [+AC] [-AC]
DET N
100
200
300
400
[+AC] [-AC]
0
100
200
300
400
[+AC] [-AC]
*
*
11
SD=97.07; [-AC] feminine English noun: M= 391 ms; SD=129.40). No significant
differences appear in the case of the determiner.
Figure 7: Default masculine and total fixation duration.
Determiner and noun interest regions
The analysis of gaze duration in the determiner interest region (Figure 8) and of
regression path duration in the noun interest region (Figure 9) shows no significant
differences. That is, in the case of the determiner (Figure 8), Spanish matching
determiners (M= 214 ms; SD=60.87) compared to Spanish default masculine determiners
(M= 211ms; SD=77.74) show similar results (t(18)=0,314, p=.833). As in Figure 9 for
the noun interest region, [+AC] English nouns (M= 324 ms; SD=95.98) compared to
feminine English nouns with Spanish default masculine determiner (M= 347ms;
SD=101.59) show similar results, too (t(18)=-1,115, p=.289).
Figure 8: Default masculine and gaze duration.
Determiner interest region
Figure 9: Default masculine and regression path
duration.
Noun interest region
These data point to a lack of effect of the masculine as a default option in the
processing data of these speakers in that masculine default switches, as in (13b), take
longer to process than Spanish determiner switches that are gender congruent, as in
(13a).
A summary of the significant results obtained per target region and per eye-
tracking measure described above appears in Table 2:
0
100
200
300
400
[+AC] MASC.
DEF [+AC] MASC.
DEF
DET N
0
100
200
300
400
[+AC] MASC. DEF.
0
100
200
300
400
[+AC] MASC. DEF
*
12
Table 2: Summary of results per eye-tracking measure and interest region
Interest area 1: determiner
Interest area 2: noun
Total fixation duration
Directionality:
• longer fixations on English
determiner switches
the ventana > la window
Gender agreement mechanisms:
• longer fixations on [-AC]
switches
el window > la window
• longer fixations on MF DPs
el window > la window
el book
Gaze duration
Directionality:
• longer fixations on English
determiner switches
the ventana > la window
--
Regression path duration
Directionality:
• longer fixations on English
determiner switches
the ventana > la window
Directionality:
• longer fixations on Spanish
determiner switches
la window > the ventana
Gender agreement mechanisms:
• longer fixations on [-AC]
switches
el window > la window
6. WHERE THE EYE HAS TAKEN US: CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
In the present study we address codeswitching processing costs in the case of English-
Spanish switched DPs considering that long fixations and regressions are typically linked
to how hard it is to process a category (Dussias, Valdés Kroff, Johns & Villegas, 2019;
Clifton & Staub, 2011; Clifton et al., 2007; Staub & Rayner, 2007; Rayner, 1998). More
specifically, we test two formal proposals in order to further contribute to shed light on
how the two grammars of the bilinguals interact: the Grammatical Features Spell-Out
Hypothesis and the Gender Double-Feature Valuation Mechanism.
In terms of directionality, data show that processing costs increase in the
determiner region in the case of English determiner – Spanish noun switches, as in (5b)
(the libro), and in the noun region in the case of Spanish determiner – English noun
switches, as in (5a) (el book). The fact that processing costs are always higher in the case
of both the English determiner and the English noun could in fact be linked to the L2
status English has for the bilingual participants in our experiment (i.e. L1 Spanish – L2
English bilingual adults). Furthermore, in the case of Spanish determiner – English noun
switches (e.g. el book), the enforcement of the Gender Double-Feature Valuation
Mechanism could well explain such delay in processing. That is, for these speakers for
whom gender agreement occurs not only in the case of Spanish DPs but also in the case
of switched DPs where Spanish provides the determiner category, a two-step operation
takes place: first, the retrieval of the Spanish noun as a translation equivalent of the
English noun (book > libro); and second, the need to perform the necessary agreement
operations. This is more costly than having to process an English determiner – Spanish
noun switch (e.g. the libro) where no such two-step grammatical operation takes place.
That is, the L1 status Spanish has for these bilingual adults delays processing in this case.
Our results are, therefore, in line with those in Litcofsky and van Hell (2017) whose
participants are also L1 Spanish – L2 English bilinguals. Taking this into account, we
would like to propose a further instantiation of the Grammatical Features Spell-out
Hypothesis. In particular, this hypothesis was initially proposed to account for the fact
that Spanish determiner switches are favored in naturalistic production over English
determiner switches because it is in Spanish determiner switches where features are more
13
grammaticized (i.e. gender features are present in the Spanish determiner but not in the
English determiner) (Liceras et al., 2005; Liceras et al., 2008). That is, it is the Spanish
determiner switch the one that has more grammatical information relevant for the
computational component. While we believe this is so, we need to extend it to non-
naturalistic data. Therefore, if we take the same rationale and apply it in the case of
online processing data, this would necessarily result in longer processing times in the
case of Spanish determiner switches. This is in fact what our data show. That is, our data
abide by an adaptation of the Grammatical Features Spell-out Hypothesis to online
processing data.
In the case of Spanish determiner switches and the type of gender agreement
mechanism which is easier to process by these bilingual participants, gender congruent
switches (i.e. [+AC]; lafeminine windowSP feminine / elmasculine bookSP masculine) are processed
faster than both gender non-congruent switches (i.e. [-AC]; elmasculine windowSP feminine /
lafeminine bookSP masculine) and switches with masculine default gender (i.e. eldefault windowSP
feminine). As pointed above, regression path duration measures show that English nouns
take longer to process because a two-step operation is implemented. This means that
when performing the second operation (i.e. the Gender Double-Feature Valuation
Mechanism), it is less costly when gender feature valuation is successful, parallel to what
happens in an all-Spanish DP (e.g. el libro ‘the book’). Therefore, in this particular case,
the L1 status Spanish has for these bilinguals actually accelerates processing when it
comes to processing gender agreement mechanisms. These results are in line with the
gender agreement preferences shown in previous off-line experimental studies (e.g.
Liceras et al., 2008; Valenzuela et al., 2012).
These eye-tracking during reading data show that the high computational value that
gender features have in the mind of L1 Spanish – L2 English adult bilinguals delays their
processing of Spanish determiner switches when compared to English determiner
switches; and that, at the same time, accelerates the processing of Spanish [+AC]
determiner switches when compared to Spanish [-AC] determiner switches. That is, the
representational value that gender features have is actually guiding these speakers’
processing of switched DPs.
These results make further work point to, at least, two different directions that we
would like to address in subsequent studies. If our proposal regarding both directionality
and gender agreement mechanisms is on the right track, similar results should be
obtained when testing L1 Spanish – L2 English bilingual children as well as L1 Spanish
– L1 English bilingual children and adults. Regardless of whether we are testing
sequential or simultaneous bilinguals, the L1 status of Spanish would make these
bilinguals’ processing strategies similar to the participants in the present investigation.
However, a difference should be observed if processing data are obtained from L1
English – L2 Spanish bilinguals and possibly also in the case of L1 English – heritage
Spanish bilinguals. On a different note, the eye-tracking reading data we have obtained in
the case of gender agreement mechanisms could be compared to visual world paradigm
data where participants are also forced to make a choice between different gender
congruent and non-congruent switches. This will help obtain a more complete picture of
how gender features are represented in the grammars of English-Spanish bilingual
speakers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research has been funded by the Castile & León Regional Government and FEDER
(Ref. VA009P17); and the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and
14
FEDER [PGC2018-097693-B-I00]. It is also part of the Castile & León Predoctoral
Fellowship received by the second author.
REFERENCES
Alexiadou, A., Lohndal, T., Åfarli, T. A., & Grimstad, M. B. (2015). Language mixing: a
distributed morphology approach. In T. Bui & D. Özyildiz (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS
45 (pp. 25–38). Amherst, MA: GSLA.
Arnaus Gil, L., Eichler, N., Jansen, V., Patuto, M., & Müller, N. (2012). The syntax of
mixed DPs containing an adjective: Evidence from bilingual German-Romance (French,
Italian, Spanish) children. In K. Geeslin & M. Díaz-Campos (Eds.), Selected Proceedings
of the 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 242-257). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Belazi, H. M., Rubin, E. J., & Toribio, A. (1994). Code-switching and X-Bar theory: The
functional head constraint. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(2), 221-237.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical
evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved
word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977-
990.
Burkholder, M. (2018). Language mixing in the nominal phrase: Implications of a
distributed morphology perspective. Languages, 3(2), 10. Doi:
10.3390/languages3020010
Di Sciullo, A., Muysken, P., & Singh, R. (1986). Government and code-mixing. Journal
of Linguistics, 22(1), 1-24. Doi: 10.1017/S0022226700010537
Clifton, C. Jr. & Staub, A. (2011). Syntactic influences on eye movements during
reading. In S. P. Liversedge, I. Gilchrist and S. Everling (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of
Eye Movements (pp. 895-909). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Clifton Jr, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and
sentences. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye
Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain (pp. 341-371). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier.
Cuetos, F., González-Nosti, M., Barbón, A., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). SUBTLEX-ESP:
Spanish word frequencies based on film subtitles. Psicológica, 32, 133-143.
Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). EsPal:
One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behaviour Research Methods, 45(4),
1246-1258. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Johns, M., & Villegas, A. (2019). How bilingualism
affects syntactic processing in the native language: Evidence from eye movements. In M.
Schmidt & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition (pp. 98-107).
15
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fairchild, S., & van Hell, J. G. (2017). Determiner-noun code-switching in Spanish
Heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 150-161. Doi:
10.1017/S1366728915000619
Fernández Fuertes, R., & Liceras, J. M. (2018). Divergent and convergent code-
switching behavior in adult production versus interpretation data: the concord-
agreement divide. Paper presented at the Key Debates in Code-Switching Research:
Methodological and Theoretical Considerations. Lorentz Center, Universiteit Leiden,
The Netherlands. January, 17.
Fernández Fuertes, R., & Liceras, J. M. (2018). Bilingualism as a first language:
language dominance and crosslinguistic influence. In A. Cuza & P. Guijarro-Fuentes
(Eds.), Language Acquisition and Contact in the Iberian Peninsula (pp. 159-186).
Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gómez Carrero, T., Fernández Fuertes, R., & Martínez, A. (2018). English-Spanish early
bilingualism in a language contact context: the view from code-switching. Paper
presented at the 2nd International Conference on Multilingual Education in Linguistically
Diverse Contexts (MELDC18). University of Malta, Malta. August, 30.
González-Vilbazo, K., & López, L. (2011). Some properties of light verbs in code-
switching. Lingua, 121(5), 832-850. Doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.11.011
Herring, J. R., Deuchar, M., Parafita Couto, M. C., & Moro Quintanilla, M. (2010). ‘I
saw the madre’: Evaluating predictions about codeswitched determiner-noun sequences
using Spanish-English and Welsh-English data. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 13(5), 553–573. Doi: 1080/13670050.2010.488286
Johns, M. A., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Dussias, P. E. (2018). Mixing things up: How
blocking and mixing affect the processing of codemixed sentences. International Journal
of Bilingualism, 23(2), 584-611. Doi: 10.1177/1367006917752570
Jorschick, L., Quick, A. E., Glässer, D., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2011). German–
English-speaking children’s mixed NPs with ‘correct’ agreement. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 14(2), 173-183. Doi: 10.1017/S1366728910000131
Liceras, J. M., Fernández Fuertes, R., & Klassen, R. (2016). Language dominance and
language nativeness: The view from English-Spanish code-switching. In R. E. Guzzardo
Tamargo, C. M. Mazak & M. C. Parafita Couto (Eds.), Spanish-English Codeswitching
in the Caribbean and the U.S. (pp. 107-138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Liceras, J. M., Fernández Fuertes, R., Perales, S., Pérez-Tattam, R., & Todd Spradlin, K.
(2008). Gender and gender agreement in bilingual native and non-native grammars: a
view from children and adult functional-lexical mixings. Lingua, 118, 827-851. Doi:
10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.006
16
Liceras, J. M., Spradlin, K. T., & Fernández Fuertes, R. (2005). Bilingual early
functional-lexical mixing and the activation of formal features. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 9(2), 227–252. Doi: 10.1177/13670069050090020601
Lillo-Martin, D., Müller, R., & Chen Pichler, D. (2016). The development of bimodal
bilingualism: Implications for linguistic theory. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6,
719-755. Doi: 10.1075/lab.6.6.01lil
Litcofsky, K. A., & van Hell, J.G. (2017). Switching direction affects switching costs:
Behavioral, ERP and time-frequency analyses of intra-sentential codeswitching.
Neuropsychologia 97, 112–139. Doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.02.002
Lohndal, T. (2013). Generative grammar and language mixing. Theoretical Linguistics,
39, 215-224. Doi: 10.1515/tl-2013-0013
MacSwan, J. (1999). A Minimalist Approach to Intra-Sentential Code-Switching. New
York: Garland.
MacSwan, J. (2000). The architecture of the bilingual faculty: evidence from
intrasentential code switching. Bilingualism 3(1), 37-54. Doi:
10.1017/S1366728900000122
MacSwan, J. (2009). Generative approaches to code-switching. In B. E. Bullock & A. J.
Toribio (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Codeswitching (pp. 309-335).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993 [1997]). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in
codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon. 1997 paperback edition with new “Afterword”.
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. 219-233). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Otheguy, R., & Lapidus, N. (2005). Matización de la teoría de la simplificación en las
lenguas en contacto: El concepto de la adaptación en el español de Nueva York. In L.
Ortiz López & M. Lacorte (Eds.), Contactos y contextos lingüísticos. El español en los
Estados Unidos y en contacto con otras lenguas (pp. 143-160). Madrid / Frankfurt:
Iberoamericana / Vervuert
Pfaff, C. (1979). Constraints on language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and
borrowing in Spanish/English. Language, 55, 291-318. Doi: 10.2307/412586
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. Doi: 10.1515/ling-2013-
0039
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of
research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422. Doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
17
Roca, I. (1989). The organization of grammatical gender. Transactions of the
Philological Society, 87, 1–32. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-968X.1989.tb00617.x
Sankoff, D., & Poplack, S. (1981). A formal grammar for code-switching. Papers in
Linguistics, 14, 3-46.
Staub, A. & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and online comprehension processes. In
M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 327-42). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UCLES) (2001). Quick
Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. M. Mazak & M. C. Parafita Couto (Eds.), Spanish-English Codeswitching
in the Caribbean and the U.S. (pp. 281-300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Valdés Kroff, J. R., Dussias, P. E., Gerfen, C., Perrotti, L., & Bajo, M. T. (2017).
Experience with code-switching modulates the use of grammatical gender during
sentence processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 163-198. Doi:
10.1075/lab.15010.val
Valenzuela, E., Faure, A., Ramírez Trujillo, A., Barski, E., Pangtay, Y., & Diez, A.
(2012). Gender in the code-mixed DPs of heritage Spanish bilinguals. Hispania, 95(3),
481-494.
Woolford, E. (1983). Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry,
14, 520-536.
