Translanguaging and the Bilingual Brain

A Mixed Methods Approach to Word-Formation and Language Processing

Nina Dumrukcic

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2022
• eBook ISBN: 9783110755671
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Multilingual classrooms and online communication are becoming increasingly linguistically diverse due to globalization and new discourse patterns are emerging. Many of these patterns include the use of linguistic resources from multiple languages in the same utterance. Translanguaging, a recent theoretical framework, is gaining prominence among scholars interested in studying these multilingual discursive practices and the concept of a unitary language system for lexical processing.

The aim of this book is to gain a better understanding of the bilingual brain and how words and sentences that use features from socially distinct languages are processed. Using examples provided by multilingual study participants, a categorization of the various forms of translanguaging is developed to build a translanguaging model. Psycholinguistic methods such as eye tracking are combined with conventional sociolinguistic survey methodology to provide rich qualitative and quantitative data that address the cognitive effects of translanguaging and the underlying structure of translingual word-formations.

This monograph shows how language biography, exposure, and attitude towards multilingual discursive practices all affect cognitive processing. It also demonstrates how multilingual speakers are setting the patterns for novel word-formations to be produced, thus having a social, cultural, and cognitive impact on how we communicate.

1 Introduction

This book investigates the bilingual brain and language processing using translanguaging as a theoretical framework and discussing use of multiple research methods. Research on translanguaging has increased significantly over the past decade (Bagga-Gupta & Dahlberg 2018; Leung & Valdés 2019; Paulsrud et al. 2017; Poza 2017). Translanguaging is defined as “a practice that involves dynamic and functionally integrated use of different languages and language varieties, but more importantly a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond language(s)” (Wei 2017, 15). Although the term has its origins in pedagogy and bilingual education (Williams 1994; García 2009; García & Baker 2007), other scholars have used it to study the organisation of the bilingual mind and how features from numerous socially distinct languages are stored in one unitary cognitive system (García & Wei 2014; Wei 2017; Otheguy, García & Reid 2015; 2018; García & Otheguy 2019).

The translanguaging theoretical stance is that bilingual individuals have “one linguistic system” (García & Wei 2014, 14) and “one grammar” (Vogel & García 2017, 7), which conflicts with the Dual Competence Model of Multilingualism, but also the Integrated Multilingual Model (MacSwan 2017). The decision to choose translanguaging theory as the framework is guided by the assumption that this theory provides the best model to explain the empirical evidence.

Translanguaging scholars support the Unitary Model of Multilingualism (Otheguy, García & Reid 2015; 2019; García & Otheguy 2020), however this model does not explore word processing and how linguistic features from socially separated languages are combined to produce meaningful utterances. This is also not explained by existing models of bilingual word processing such as the Word Association Model and Concept Mediation Model (Potter et al. 1984), the Dual-Route Model (Coltheart et al. 1993), the BIA+ Model (Dijkstra & van Heuven 2002), BIMOLA (Léwy & Grosjean 2008), and BSRN (French & Jacquet 2004). Therefore, a model was necessary to account for the various levels of language processing, and the different types of phonological, morphological, syntactic, and other linguistic features that are selected as a result of translanguaging. I present the development of such a model based on examples of translanguaging which were sorted according to linguistic categories.

In 2016, I conducted a series of questionnaires on the online discursive practices of multilingual people which showed that most people engage in multilingual practices because they find it easier to communicate that way. The focus is on new lexical items and syntactic structures that are formed as a consequence of bilingual speakers choosing to engage in multilingual discourse and how these novel formations are understood and perceived by other bilingual speakers. Examples include words consisting of features from German and English such as Freundship, Umweltaward, or Developerin and syntactic translanguaging such as I need a Teilnahmeschein.

Moreover, this book also explores how eye tracking can be used in determining whether translanguaging incurs any cognitive costs in reading comprehension. Although eye tracking studies have been carried out on bilingual language pro­cessing using the code-switching framework (see e.g., Guzzardo Tamargo, Valdés Kroff & Dussias 2016; Valdés Kroff, Guzzardo Tamargo & Dussias 2018; Beatty-Martínez, Valdés Kroff & Dussias 2018), there are no eye tracking studies to date, that examine word processing using translanguaging theory. Valdés Kroff (2012) focuses on sentence comprehension rather than lexical items. Beres (2015b) explores word recognition through a translanguaging lens using Event-Related Potential components. Tham, Chau, and Thank (2019) conducted a translanguaging study on lexical cues in an L1 compared to L2 using eye tracking methodology which showed that participants spend similar time on both cues however they used monolingual stimuli. Wu and Xi (2018) carried out an eye tracking study using code-switching theory to test switch costs. However, the authors themselves concluded that the experiment had a very small sample size of 8 participants and would have to be tested on a larger scale. Moreover, the lexical items which were used were not controlled very well and acronyms, alphabetisms, single words such as blends and compounds, and multiple word phrases were all combined. When comparing words of varying length across different conditions this can affect reading performance, although this can be difficult to control for, and it can depend on the type of study. The frequency of items was considered and measured in two media sources, which the authors themselves claim was a limitation of the study.

Due to the complexity of translanguaging data, it is necessary to use various techniques for linguistic analysis and draw on findings from other humanities and social sciences, such as sociology, psychology, computational sciences, and cognitive neuroscience. For this reason, an interdisciplinary mixed methods ap­­proach is used to study how the bilingual brain comprehends word-formations such as compounds, blends, and other lexical items which have morpho-­syntactic features from “named languages” (Otheguy, García & Reid 2019, 626) such as English, German, Spanish and other socially distinct entities.

1.1 Research Aims

Translanguaging theory is used as a foundation for understanding how language knowledge is stored and accessed in the bilingual brain. A combination of surveys, corpus concordances, and social media posts were used to collect data on authentic examples of translanguaging and analyse the emerging discourse patterns in English-German bilingual communication. A classificatory model was built which combines the hierarchical structure of a language processing cognitive model and the categorisation of items according to orthographic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features. This model was then used as a foundation for an eye tracking experiment to see whether there are differences in how the bilingual brain processes words that are formed by selecting features from two glottonyms compared to monolingual formations. The overarching research question is:

1. Can translanguaging theory provide a better understanding of the bilingual brain and its linguistic system?
   Translanguaging theory and other approaches to analysing multilingual discursive practices are critically reviewed in order to determine terminological discrepancies and differences in theoretical stances. The structure of the bilingual brain is explored, as well as theoretical foundations of reading comprehension. The empirical evidence that was collected as part of this project shows that translanguaging occurs in many different phonological and morpho-syntactic forms. Therefore, further research questions were developed:
2. How can translanguaging be categorised according to orthographic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, and pragmatic features?
3. What patterns can be observed in word-formations that are produced as a result of multilingual discursive practices?
   These questions were addressed by collecting examples of multilingual practices from surveys, social media posts, blogs, and corpora, and finding recurring patterns in word-formation. The Translanguaging Model was used to determine what types of word-formations are produced with particular focus on noun-formations. Furthermore, to explore the cognitive aspect of translanguaging, the following issues were addressed:
4. How do translingual words affect the reading performance of bilinguals and what other factors may incur cognitive costs in bilingual word processing?
   The predictions were that, aside from whether the word is translingual or monolingual, factors such as the age of bilingual readers, their language dominance, the length and frequency of use of the word being read may all affect how it is processed.

This is an endeavour to contribute to both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic research by demonstrating the following:

• Bilinguals use their entire linguistic repertoire to form words and sentences.
• Different categories of translanguaging can be determined based on common underlying structural patterns.
• Reading performance is affected not merely by the formation of words as a consequence of translanguaging, but also by word length and how frequently translingual items are encountered.

The results support the cognitive model where bilingual speakers do not seem to organise their different languages in separate modules but that there is rather one cognitive system in which all linguistic features are integrated.

1.2 Drawing the Boundary: Socio-Political and Cultural Background

Translanguaging is a theory that challenges the hegemony of languages and strives for a more equal and inclusive society (Helm & Dabre 2018; García, Lin & May 2017). According to García and Kleyn (2016), the linguistic features of some people who frequently engage in communication are similar enough that they are said to speak the same language, hence they can understand one another without difficulty. Although multilingual discourse is nowadays frequently encountered online and heard on the streets, these language practices date back to Medieval Britain with documents in Latin containing vernacular articles and nouns (Ingham 2013). Likewise, evidence of using features from multiple languages occurred in pre-colonial times in regions of the world such as South Asia, Africa, and South America (Canagarajah 2011b). It has been common for linguists to describe some of the behaviour of speakers labelled as bilinguals as consisting of language mixing and Poplack uses this umbrella term to refer to “various combinations of overt lexical material from two or more languages” (2018, 5, emphasis by author). To comprehend what language mixing entails, it is first necessary to be familiar with what constitutes as different languages and how languages are constructed (Hornby 1977).

A variety of historical, sociocultural, political, and geographical factors play a significant role in whether languages are divided or characterised as dialects (Lyons 1968). In regard to bilingualism, one end of the spectrum would be an individual who is fluent in two languages from dissimilar language families such as Finnish and Mandarin Chinese, whereas the other would be a person who uses stylistic varieties of what is socially considered to be one language such as a Cockney accent as opposed to Received Pronunciation. Scholars have included such sociolinguistic varieties in their definition of bilingualism and Taylor for instance claims that a bilingual person is someone who speaks two or more “languages, dialects, or styles of speech that involve differences in sound, vocabulary and syntax” (1976, 239). De Houwer and Ortega use the term language to refer to “any form of linguistic communication that is socially constructed as habitually belonging to a particular way of speaking, signing, or writing” (2019, 3). The most noticeable features used to distinguish between languages is that they differ in syntactic structure, the phonological system, orthography, vocabulary, and idiomaticity. However, complex socio-political factors also affect what separates one language from another.

Take for example the case of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian being officially recognised as separate languages. Etymologically, all three originated from the pluricentric language Serbo-Croatian in former Yugoslavia, and there is mutual intelligibility among speakers. There are differences in pronunciation such as use of the ekavian, ikavian and iekavian variants, and orthography such as the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. Additionally, there are differences in vocabulary, particularly with culture-specific lexical items. In Sarajevo, the languages are taught as one subject in primary and secondary schools. According to government language policy, they are treated as three autonomous languages for politically motivated reasons such as broadening the division among ethnicities (Hadzi 2014). Many people from the region take offence if Serbian, Bosnian or Croatian are not recognised as separate languages, although Pennycook and Otsuji use examples of construction workers in Sydney dismissing labels such as Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian and claiming that “it’s all Yugoslav” (2016, 261). The issue is not that the language users find the labels unhelpful, but rather that Yugoslav was not actually a recognised language in its own right. Therefore, we can conclude that language is a marker of ethnic identity and tied to a socio-political construct of the former unified country, Yugoslavia (Greenberg 2004). Most examples in my dataset are drawn from English and German, and while there are many varieties such as Austrian German, Swiss German, Canadian English, Australian English etc. they are generally recognized by the global community as being two autonomous languages.

There are two types of autonomy in linguistic theory: Abstand Autonomy and Ausbau Autonomy. The former refers to languages such as English and German that gradually separated over time and are “typologically and genetically sufficiently apart so there is no danger that they would interfere with each other” (Hadzi 2014, 67). The latter is a process where “languages have been separated by active intervention of language planners as a result of rising ethnic awareness, such as Hindu and Urdu or Scandinavian languages which are mutually comprehensible, but which were separated upon the establishment of independent contemporary national states in the region” (Hadzi 2014, 68) as was the case with Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian, with Montenegrin still undergoing standardisation. Distinguishing between languages may be slightly different from a linguists’ perspective than for the government which reinforces social policy. Linguists may focus on the orthographic, phonological, and syntactic differences, whilst sociologists and politicians may focus on the socio-cultural identity. Finding standardised differences between languages is exceedingly difficult due to their complex nature and some languages which are mutually intelligible are treated as separate languages for political reasons such as Moldovan and Romanian. On the other hand, Mandarin (the Beijing dialect) and Yue (Cantonese) have numerous differences for example in tones, characters, and vocabulary, yet are regarded by some as dialects, not necessarily distinct languages, and sometimes fall under the overarching yet misleading term ‘Chinese’.

Criticism of multilingual practices has been due to a long history of monolingual bias, and the ideology of ‘one nation- one language’, where there was no place for multilingualism (Auer 2007; 2010; Heller 2007). This was even though language contact and blending of cultures resulted in languages being influenced by one another. Western Europe in particular is biased towards monolingual orientation. The monolingual orientation consists of the following ideas:

• Language = Community = Place.
• 1 language = 1 identity.
• Language as a self-standing system.
• Languages as pure and separated from each other.
• The locus of language as cognition rather than social context, or mind rather than matter.
• Communication as based on grammar rather than practice, and form isolated from its ecological, embeddedness (Canagarajah 2013c, 20).

While all these philosophies are true to a certain extent – language is closely linked to community and a place, it is tied to identity, etc. – it is nonetheless very difficult to compartmentalise languages and socio-cultural identities. Oksaar (1989) points out that when two bilinguals with similar backgrounds have an encounter, using both of their languages is a natural way of communicating for them, provided they are both sufficiently proficient.

Wei (2018a) outlines the theoretical and ideological nature of what constitutes as a language, and suggests three main approaches to the question of whether languages are different from one another:

1. The first has a negative answer, and it is the Language Universal Approach, and advocates of this approach claim that all humans have an innate predisposition for language with the same design features, and that the variety we see in languages stems from differences in the representational systems of these features (Chomsky 1986). Wei explains that this approach “does not deny the fact that different groups of speakers use different codes to express their communicative intentions in everyday life, and that these different codes have come to adopt different names and labels over time and are therefore known as languages” (2018a, 17).
2. The second is one of the affirmative methods which focuses on the origin, namely the Historical Approach, which “considers linguistic diversity as an outcome of the evolution of languages, which is assumed to be akin to the evolution of species, complete with competition, adaptation and extinction” (Wei 2018a, 17). Languages can be categorised according to their genetics i.e., which language family they belong to e.g., Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian, or Sino-Tibetan. They can also be classified according to structure and word order such as SVO, SOV, VSO etc. Finally, there is the classification based on geographical regions and a consequences of merging cultures.
3. The Practice-Based Approach also offers an affirmative answer to whether languages fundamentally differ and does not deny similar features in all human languages but focuses on “how linguistic diversity manifests itself in everyday, here-and-now interaction and how human beings manage the differences between the languages they use” (Wei 2018a, 18). A lot of emphasis is placed on diversity and how different socio-cultural groups use language as a means to interact, set aside their differences, achieve mutual understanding, and express their values.

Some scholars have called into question the very nature of multilingualism, with Makoni and Pennycook denying the existence of languages as corporeal e...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Translanguaging Theory
• 3 Multilingual Discourse Practices
• 4 The Bilingual Reader
• 5 Mixed Methods Approach to Bilingualism
• 6 The Translanguaging Model
• 7 Translingual Word-Formation
• 8 Conclusion
• References
• Index