Article In:
The Mental Lexicon: Online-First Articles

Processing costs in Cantonese-Latin script-mixing

 | University of Toronto Scarborough
 | University of Toronto Scarborough | University of Toronto | University of Toronto Scarborough
ORCID logo | University of Toronto Scarborough
An emerging trend among young Cantonese speakers is to script-mix morphographic Chinese characters with Latin graphemes in social media exchanges, uncommon in traditional Chinese contexts. Results of a self-paced reading experiment with Cantonese speakers are reported to determine whether script-mixing incurs processing costs, and if so, whether these can be attributed to Inhibitory Control of one of the two scripts or to Dual Activation of both scripts but with slower lexical access within the non-dominant script. Sentences were presented either entirely in Chinese characters or had one region presented in Latin graphemes. Processing costs arose only at the switch from Latin graphemes back to Chinese characters, pointing to the involvement of Inhibitory Control. Further, these costs only appeared in a subset of grammatical categories, potentially coinciding with parsing uncertainties. As such, a combination of script-mixing and parsing complexities could be seen to result in processing costs in certain sentential positions.
Keywords: processing costs, script-mixing, Cantonese-English code-switching, electronic literacy, social media
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedure
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Replication package
  • Acknowledgements
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (27)
References
Alvarez, R. P., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2003). Accessing word meaning in two languages: An event-related brain potential study of beginning bilinguals. Brain and Language, 87 (2), 290–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59 (4), 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bultena, S., Dijkstra, T., & van Hell, J. (2015). Language switch costs in sentence comprehension depend on language dominance: Evidence from self-paced reading*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18 (3), 453–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50 (4), 491–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruz, L. (2022). Is AoA a relevant variable to account for code-switching processing? Poster presented at IMPRS Conference on Interdisciplinary Approaches in the Language Sciences . Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 189–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Filipović-Đurđević, D., Milin, P., & Feldman, L. B. (2013). Bi-alphabetism: A window on phonological processing. Psihologija, 46(4), 421–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (2), 67–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying Bilinguals. Oxford University Press. [URL]. DOI logo
Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics (pp. 20–49). Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82 (1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (2015). PyCantonese: Cantonese linguistic research in the age of big data [Talk]. [URL]
Lenth, R. V. (2024). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means (R package version 1.10.4). [URL]
Levelt, W. J. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42(1–3), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luoma, A. (2019). Linguistic Diversity in the Digital Age [MA Thesis]. University of Helsinki.
Mosca, M., & De Bot, K. (2017). Bilingual language switching: Production vs. Recognition. Frontiers in psychology, 8 1, 934. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proverbio, A. M., Leoni, G., & Zani, A. (2004). Language switching mechanisms in simultaneous interpreters: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 42 (12), 1636–1656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Rogers, H. (2005). Writing systems: A linguistic approach. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Song, J. J. (2015). Language policies in North and South Korea. In L. Brown & J. Yeon (Eds.), The Handbook of Korean Linguistics (pp. 477–491). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, A., Bali, K., & Choudhury, M. (2020). Understanding Script-Mixing: A Case Study of Hindi-English Bilingual Twitter Users. Proceedings of the The 4th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Code Switching, 36–44. [URL]
Tamaoka, K. (1991). Psycholinguistic nature of the Japanese orthography. Studies in Language and Literature, 11 (1), 49–82.Google Scholar
Wang, X. (2015). Language control in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from the maze task. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 1, 1179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., & Müller, K. (2020). dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. [URL]