The effect of cognitive load on code-switching

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

This study explores the effect of cognitive load on code-switching (CS), by examining whether an increase in cognitive load can lead to a different amount and/or pattern of CS use, and whether there is an interplay between the effect of cognitive load and the effect of social factors (i.e., language and use, and attitudes towards CS).

Methodology:

Thirty-one Chinese-English bilinguals participated in a picture recall experiment consisting of three sessions, with an incremental increase in cognitive load which was achieved by manipulating the number of attentional targets that should be attended to. The increase in cognitive load was validated by a self-report survey adapted from Paas. Information on social variables was collected by a language use questionnaire.

Data and analysis:

The amount and pattern (intraclausal vs interclausal) of CS were coded and quantified. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the within-participant use of CS across the sessions. Hierarchal regression analyses were also conducted to examine how cognitive load and the social variables of interest predicted the between-participant variation of CS in each session.

Findings/conclusions:

The results showed that the participants used significantly less intraclausal CS in Session 3, in which they reported the highest degree of cognitive load. In addition, the results of hierarchical regression analyses for overall CS use in Session 2 confirmed the significant effect of cognitive load. The influence of attitudes towards CS was also shown to be another significant predictor with large effect size. However, in the more demanding Session 3, none of the factors of interest could predict between-participant variation in CS use.

Originality:

This study is among the first to examine how cognitive load affects nonlaboratory CS.

Significance/implications:

This study argues for a recognition of the cognitive processing basis of socially driven language use, linking sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on the use of CS.

Keywords

Chinese-English code-switching cognitive load processing experiment attitude language use

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abel

Babel

(2017). Cognitive load reduces perceived linguistic convergence between dyads. Language and Speech, 60(3), 479–502.

Allport

Styles

Hsieh

(1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In Umilta

Moscovitch

(Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Auer

Hinskens

(2005). The role of interpersonal accommodations in a theory of language change. In Auer

Hinskens

Kerswill

(Eds.), Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages (pp. 335–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Backus

(2014). Towards a usage-based account of language change: Implications of contact linguistics for linguistic theory. In Nicolai

(Ed.), Questioning language contact: Limits of contact, contact at its limits (pp. 91–118). Brill.

Bock

J. K.

(1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.

Bock

J. K.

Levelt

(1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher

M. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). Academic Press.

Bybee

J. L.

(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

de Bot

. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.

10.

de Bruin

Arthur

Samuel

A. G.

Duñabeitia

G. A

. (2018). Voluntary language switching: When and why do bilinguals switch between their languages? Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 28–43.

11.

Deuchar

(2012). Code-switching. In Chapelle

C. A.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 657–664). New York: Wiley.

12.

Gagarina

Klop

Kunnari

Tantele

Välimaa

Balčiūnienė

Bohnacker

Walters

(2012). MAIN: Multilingual assessment instrument for narratives. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 56.

13.

Gardner-Chloros

(2009). Sociolinguistic factors in code-switching. In Bullock

B. E.

Toribio

A. J.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 97–113). Cambridge University Press.

14.

Garrett

(2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press.

15.

Gollan

T. H.

Kleinman

Wierenga

C. E.

(2014). What’s easier: Doing what you want, or being told what to do? Cued versus voluntary language and task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2167–2195.

16.

Grosjean

(1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.

17.

Gumperz

J. J.

(1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.

18.

Green

D. W.

(1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213–229.

19.

Heredia

R. R.

Altarriba

(2001). Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 164–168.

20.

Huttunen

Keränen

Väyrynen

Pääkkönen

Leino

(2011). Effects of cognitive load on speech prosody in aviation: Evidence from military simulator flights. Applied Ergonomics, 42(2), 348–357.

21.

Klepsch

Schmitz

Seufert

(2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1997.

22.

Kleinman

Gollan

T. H.

(2016). Speaking two languages for the price of one: Bypassing language control mechanisms via accessibility-driven switches. Psychological Science, 27, 700–714.

23.

Krell

(2017). Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence. Cogent Education, 4(1), Article 1280256.

24.

Labov

(1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge University Press.

25.

Labov

(2001). The anatomy of style-shifting. In Eckert

Rickford

(Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 85–108). Cambridge University Press.

26.

Lin

(2001). A grammar of modern Chinese. LINCOM Europa.

27.

Liu

(2020). A socio-cognitive approach to code-switching: From the perspective of a dynamic usage-based account of language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(10), 1270–1299.

28.

Lively

S. E.

Pisoni

D. B.

Summers

W. V.

Bernacki

R. H.

(1993). Effects of cognitive workload on speech production: Acoustic analyses and perceptual consequences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93(5), 2962–2973.

29.

Milroy

(1987). Language and social networks (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

30.

Minkley

K. M.

Krell

(2021). Analyzing relationships between causal and assessment factors of cognitive load: Associations between objective and subjective measures of cognitive load, stress, interest, and self-concept. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 632907.

31.

Moore

(2002). Case study: Code-switching and learning in the classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(5), 279–293.

32.

Myers-Scotton

(1993a). Duelling languages. Oxford University Press.

33.

Myers-Scotton

(1993b). Social motivations for code-switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford University Press.

34.

Paas

F. G.

(1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.

35.

Packard

J. L.

(2015). Morphology: Morphemes in Chinese. In Wang

Sun

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics (pp. 262–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

36.

Poplack

(1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPANOL: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618.

37.

Roelofs

Piai

(2011). Attention demands of spoken word planning: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(307), 1–14.

38.

Sharma

(2018). Style dominance: Attention, audience, and the ‘real me’. Language in Society, 47, 1–33.

39.

Sharma

McCarthy

(2018). Attentional load and style control. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 24(2), Article 15.

40.

Singh

Backus

A. M.

(2000). Bilingual proficiency and code-switching/mixing patterns. In Singh

(Ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics 2000 (pp. 61–91). SAGE.

41.

Sorace

(2006). Possible manifestations of shallow processing in advanced second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 88–91.

42.

Sweller

Ayres

Kalyuga

(2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

43.

van Heuven

W. J.

Mandera

Keuleers

Brysbaert

. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190.

44.

Wei

(1994). Three generations, two languages, one family: Language choice and language shift in a Chinese community in Britain. Multilingual Matters.

45.

Wei

Milroy

Ching

P. S.

(2000). A two step sociolinguistic analysis of code-switching and language choice: The example of a bilingual Chinese community in Britain. In Wei

(Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 188–209). Routledge.

46.

Weissberger

G. H.

Gollan

T. H.

Bondi

M. W.

Clark

L. R.

Wierengaet

C. E.

(2015). Language and task switching in the bilingual brain: Bilinguals are staying, not switching, experts. Neuropsychologia, 66, 193–203.

47.

Markowska

Chodorow

(2021). A network science approach to bilingual code-switching. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics, 4, 3.

48.

Zentella

A. C.

(1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Blackwell.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.04 MB