Proceedings of the 3rd Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities An 2019
DOI: 10.18653/v1/w19-2515
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The limits of Spanglish?

Abstract: Linguistic code-switching (C-S) is common in oral bilingual vernacular speech. When used in literature, C-S becomes an artistic choice that can mirror the patterns of bilingual interactions. But it can also potentially exceed them. What are the limits of C-S? We model features of C-S in corpora of contemporary U.S. Spanish-English literary and conversational data to analyze why some critics view the 'Spanglish' texts of Ilan Stavans as deviating from a C-S norm.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Note that although later work by Bullock et al (2019) propose a normalized I-Index due to its dependence on a corpus's M-Index, we have intentionally chosen transcripts that are comparable in their M-Index. Specifically, the M-Index is close to 1 for three transcripts (03, 10, 16) and .50 for two (05, 27).…”
Section: Within-iu I-indexmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Note that although later work by Bullock et al (2019) propose a normalized I-Index due to its dependence on a corpus's M-Index, we have intentionally chosen transcripts that are comparable in their M-Index. Specifically, the M-Index is close to 1 for three transcripts (03, 10, 16) and .50 for two (05, 27).…”
Section: Within-iu I-indexmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mismatch between actual bilingual codeswitching behavior and renditions of codeswitching (CS) has been exposed in previous work. In particular, unnatural switching is characterized by the shortness of language spans and the arbitrariness of language boundaries (Bullock et al, 2019). Yet to date, metrics of CS complexity have been word-level based (e.g., a 4word utterance with 3 switches, w L1 w L2 w L1 w L2 , Gambäck andDas, 2016:1851).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Computational work on sociolinguistic issues uses social media posts or other large corpora to detect lexical innovations and dialect regions (Donoso and Sánchez, 2017;Eisenstein, 2018;Grieve et al, 2018) or to examine the impact of sociodemographic factors (Bamman et al, 2014;Blodgett et al, 2016;Nguyen et al, 2013). Language contact has been addressed in terms of codeswitching (Bullock et al, 2019;Guzman et al, 2016), language choice (Eleta and Golbeck, 2014;Nguyen et al, 2015), and semantic integration of loanwords (Deng et al, 2019;Serigos, 2017;Takamura et al, 2017). Related work on Canadian English is limited to corpus construction (Cook and Brinton, 2017;Miletic et al, 2020) and descriptive analyses of online communication (Tagliamonte and Denis, 2008).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the unnormalized I-index would not be close to 1 unless the M-index of the corpus is close to 1, indicating that each language in the corpus is equally distributed. In order to decouple this metric from the underlying language distribution of the corpus, a normalized version of the I-index is developed by Bullock et al (2019) and is computed as follows:…”
Section: Metrics For Characterizing Code-switched Corporamentioning
confidence: 99%