Monolingual stimuli as a foundation for analyzing code-switching data

Abstract

Among methodological concerns specific to code-switching (CS) research is the design of the target stimuli used in experiments with an acceptability judgment task. We argue here that research which makes use of CS data of this type must also incorporate monolingual stimuli into the experimental design, specifically monolingual stimuli judged by the same bilingual participants who judge the code-switched stimuli. We do so by reviewing two sets of experimental CS data we collected and exploring the role that monolingual stimuli can play in the analysis of that data. In each experiment, an analysis based solely on acceptability judgments of the CS stimuli leads to one interpretation, while incorporation of results from the monolingual stimuli leads to a distinct interpretation. We show that it is the interpretation integrating the monolingual acceptability judgments which is more valid, thereby arguing for the value of monolingual stimuli in design and analysis.

Control Stimuli in Experimental Code-Switching Research

“…For whatever reason, bilingual participants are often less sure/consistent when rating code-switched sentences when compared to their monolingual equivalents. Take for example Ebert and Koronkiewicz's (2018) work on the inclusion of monolingual comparison stimuli in experimental CS research, where it is argued that acceptability can be directly tied to switch point by having participants rate the same sentences in both mixed and non-mixed versions. When looking at pronouns, the standard deviations for the mean ratings range from 1.81 to 4.35 (out of 7) for Spanish-English CS stimuli, but only 0.57 to 2.76 for the monolingual comparison stimuli (Ebert and Koronkiewicz 2018, p. 37).…”

“…For the current investigation, only the data from the first block is included in the dataset, as the monolingual judgments are not relevant to the research questions. Following Ebert and Koronkiewicz (2018), such sentences were included as a comparison to better ensure that any unacceptability found in the mixed sentences was specific to the switch point and not a judgment based on some different linguistic phenomenon. Participants rated the monolingual versions of the sentences under analysis here as completely acceptable, thus confirming that the task did indeed target the (un)acceptability of switching.…”

Attitudes Toward Different Types of Chinese-English Code-Switching

“…This will also make it possible to have both Chinese and English monolingual conditions as baseline for attitude comparison, which can provide more solid evidence of how the behavior of switching works either independently or jointly with subjects' perception of individual languages to affect their evaluative responses to language practices in contact situations (cf. Ebert & Koronkiewicz, 2018 which are traditionally viewed as discourse markers, are not considered as clausal structures either. They form a part of the adjacent clause to which they are semantically related.…”

The Morphophonology of Intraword Codeswitching: Representation and Processing

“…The remaining 2 days of testing were administered in English and Spanish (order was counterbalanced across participants). Testing in these three modes allowed the authors to determine the source of phonology in ICS productions by using the Spanish and English data as a baseline, rather than comparing ICS productions with a monolingual norm (see e.g., Ebert and Koronkiewicz, 2018). Another important consideration was the stimuli design; nonce verbs were used to address the challenges of teasing apart code-switches from borrowings discussed in sections Review of Foundational Research on Intraword Codeswitching and Discussion: Morphological Restrictions vs. Phonological Restrictions and to control for potential frequency effects.…”