Ambiguous pronoun resolution has been amply investigated by previous literature on bilingual language processing. However, factors related to the sociolinguistic environment of bilingual communities and sociopragmatic cues in bilingual communication remain almost unexplored. This study examines whether different sociolinguistic contexts influence bilinguals’ ambiguous pronoun resolution and whether code-switching modulates referent selection.
Methodology:
A total of 92 Italian-English bilingual speakers residing either in Italy or in an anglophone country participated in the study. Despite having comparable linguistic background in terms of high proficiency in their L2 (English) and sharing the same native language (Italian), they belonged to different sociolinguistic environments and were immersed in different communicative contexts. Both groups did the same auditory sentence comprehension tasks, where stimuli were either in Italian only or with English-to-Italian code-switching and presented either a null or an overt ambiguous pronoun.
Data and analysis:
While both groups tended to refer null ambiguous pronouns to subject referents and overt pronouns to object referents, this tendency was significantly more pronounced for bilinguals residing in Italy. No effect of code-switching on referent selection for ambiguous pronouns was found in any group.
Conclusions:
These findings suggest that ambiguous pronoun resolution is modulated by the sociolinguistic environment of bilingual speakers, with patterns of language attrition emerging for bilinguals immersed in contexts where their native language is a minority language.
Originality:
We explored the sociolinguistic dimension of bilingualism on language processing. Furthermore, we tested the potential effect of code-switching as a sociopragmatic cue during the processing of syntax-pragmatic interface phenomena, introduced as a controlled variable in our experimental design.
Implications:
The results emphasize the importance of considering bilingualism as a multifaceted experience rather than a binary condition in the context of language processing, as bilinguals speaking the same languages with similar L2 proficiency can still differ due to different sociolinguistic environments.
ArnoldJ. E.EisenbandJ. G.Brown-SchmidtS.TrueswellJ. C. (2000). The immediate use of gender information: Eyetracking evidence of the time-course of pronoun resolution. Cognition, 76(1), 13–26.
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version.
4.
BatesD.SarkarD.MatrixL. (2007). The lme4 package. Linear mixed-effects models using S. 4.
5.
Beatty-MartínezA. L.DussiasP. E. (2017). Bilingual experience shapes language processing: Evidence from codeswitching. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.002
6.
Blanco-ElorrietaE.PylkkänenL. (2017). Bilingual Language Switching in the Laboratory versus in the Wild: The Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Adaptive Language Control. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 37(37), 9022–9036. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0553-17.2017
7.
BruscatoA. MBaptistaJ. (2022). The resolution of ambiguous anaphora in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Alfa Revista de Linguística, 65(1), 1–22.
8.
CacoullosR. T.TravisC. E. (2018). Bilingualism in the community: Code-switching and grammars in contact. Cambridge University Press.
9.
CarminatiM. N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
10.
ChamorroG.SoraceA. (2019). The Interface Hypothesis as a framework for studying L1 attrition. In: SchmidM. S.KöpkeB. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 25–36). Oxford University Press.
11.
ChamorroG.SoraceA.SturtP. (2016). What is the source of L1 attrition? The effect of recent L1 re-exposure on Spanish speakers under L1 attrition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 520–532.
12.
ChomskyN. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.
13.
CiccoloneS. (2020). Il code mixing come marcatore della struttura informativa e testuale dell’enunciato [Code-mixing as a marker of the informative and textual structure of the utterance]. STUDI AITLA, 11, 269–284.
14.
ContemoriC.Minjarez-OppenheimerN. (2023). Changing pronoun interpretations across-languages: Discourse priming in Spanish-English bilingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26, 284–292.
15.
ContemoriC.MossmanS.GalavizA. L. A. (2024). The use of pronoun interpretation biases in L1 Spanish: The role of language proficiency, exposure, and use in heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 21(1), 1–30.
16.
ContemoriC.TortajadaF. (2020). The use of social–communicative cues to interpret ambiguous pronouns: Bilingual adults differ from monolinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(1), 51–77.
Di DomenicoE. (2021). Bilingualism and (outward) over-explicitness in the choice of subject anaphoric devices. Qulso, 7, 51–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.13128/QUSO-2421-7220-12002
19.
FingerH.GoekeC.DiekampD.StandvoßK.KönigP. (2017, July10–13). LabVanced: A unified JavaScript framework for online studies. International Conference on Computational Social Science, Cologne, Germany.
20.
FrascarelliM. (2007). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(4), 691–734.
21.
GalloF.Bermudez-MargarettoB.ShtyrovY.AbutalebiJ.KreinerH.ChitayaT.PetrovaA.MyachykovA. (2021). First language attrition: What it is, what it isn’t, and what it can be. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, Article 686388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.686388
22.
GreenbergJ. H. (1966). Language universals (Vol. 8). Mouton.
23.
GrosjeanF.PyB. (1991). La restructuration d’une première langue: l’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues [The restructuring of a first language: the integration of contact variants into the competence of bilingual migrants]. Linguistique, 27, 35–60.
GürelA. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: A psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(1), 53–78.
26.
HallK.NilepC. (2015). Code-switching, identity, and globalization. In SchiffrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. E. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 597–619). Wiley.
27.
IkizerE. G.Ramírez-EsparzaN. (2018). Bilinguals’ social flexibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(5), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000414
28.
KaltsaM.TsimpliI. M.RothmanJ. (2015). Exploring the source of differences and similarities in L1 attrition and heritage speaker competence: Evidence from pronominal resolution. Lingua, 164, 266–288.
29.
KehlerA.KertzL.RohdeH.ElmanJ. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018
30.
KipchogeR. (2024). Language and identity: Code-switching practices among multilingual communities. European Journal of Linguistics, 3(3), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.47941/ejl.2053
31.
KootstraG. (2015). A psycholinguistic perspective on code-switching: Lexical, structural, and socio-interactive processes. In StellG.YakpoK. (Ed.), Code-switching between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 39–64). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346879.39
32.
KrashenS. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
33.
LeivadaE.Rodríguez-OrdóñezI.Parafita CoutoM. C.PerpiñánS. (2023). Bilingualism with minority languages: Why searching for unicorn language users does not move us forward. Applied Psycholinguistics, 44(3), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716423000036
34.
LibermanZ.WoodwardA. L.KeysarB.KinzlerK. D. (2017). Exposure to multiple languages enhances communication skills in infancy. Developmental Science, 20(1), 12420. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12420
35.
LukG. (2023). Justice and equity for whom? Reframing research on the “bilingual (dis) advantage”. Applied Psycholinguistics, 44(3), 301–315.
36.
MasulloC.DentellaV.LeivadaE. (2024). 73% of the observed bilingual (dis)advantageous effects on cognition stem from sociolinguistic factors: A systematic review. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 27(3), 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000664
37.
Myers-ScottonC. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Clarendon.
38.
MyslínM.LevyR. (2015). Code-switching and predictability of meaning in discourse. Language, 91, 871–905.
39.
Parafita CoutoM.BellamyK.AmekaF. (2023). Theoretical linguistic approaches to multilingual code-switching. In CabrelliJ.Chaouch-OrozcoA.González AlonsoJ.Pereira SoaresS.Puig-MayencoE.RothmanJ. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of third language acquisition (Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics) (pp. 403–436). Cambridge University Press.
40.
Parafita CoutoM. C.PouwC.LaanenR.LópezL. (2024). The role of INFL in code-switching: A study of a Papiamento heritage community in the Netherlands. Frontiers in Language Science, 2, Article 1288198. https://doi.org/10.3389/flang.2023.1288198
41.
PoplackS. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18(7–8), 581–618. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1980.18.7-8.581
42.
PoplackS. (2015). Code switching (linguistic). In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.; pp. 918–925). Elsevier.
43.
RinkeE.FloresC. (2018). Another look at the interpretation of overt and null pronominal subjects in bilingual language acquisition: Heritage Portuguese in contact with German and Spanish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 681–624. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.535
44.
SeligerH. W.ShohamyE. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford University Press.
45.
SerratriceL. (2007). Cross-linguistic influence in the interpretation of anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns in English–Italian bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728907003045
46.
SerratriceL.SoraceA.PaoliS. (2004). Cross-linguistic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in Italian–English bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205.
47.
SoléY. R. (1994). The input hypothesis and the bilingual learner. Bilingual Review / La Revista Bilingüe, 19(2), 99–110. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25745211
48.
SoraceA. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 143–145.
49.
SoraceA. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.
50.
TomićA.Valdés KroffJ. R. (2022). Expecting the unexpected: Code-switching as a facilitatory cue in online sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000237
51.
TsimpliI. M.SoraceA. (2006). Differentiating Interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In BammanD.MagnitskaiaT.ZallerC. (Eds.), Proceedings of Boston University conference on language development30 (pp. 653–664). Cascadilla Press.
52.
TsimpliI. M.SoraceA.HeycockC.FiliaciF. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3), 257–277.
53.
van HeuvenW. J.ManderaP.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
54.
VogelzangM.FoppoloF.GuastiM. T.van RijnH.HendriksP. (2019). Reasoning about alternative forms is costly: The processing of null and overt pronouns in Italian using pupillary responses. Discourse Processes, 57(2), 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1591127
55.
YowW. Q.MarkmanE. M. (2015). A bilingual advantage in how children integrate multiple cues to understand a speaker’s referential intent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 391–399.
