See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332065459

Does Exposure to Code‐Switching Influence Language Performance in Bilingual

Children?

Article in Child Development · March 2019

DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13235

CITATIONS READS
15 1,018

2 authors, including:

Kimberly Crespo
Boston University
12 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kimberly Crespo on 02 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Child Dev. 2019 May ; 90(3): 708–718. doi:10.1111/cdev.13235.

Does Exposure to Code-Switching Influence Language

Performance in Bilingual Children?
Margarita Kaushanskaya, Kimberly Crespo
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Abstract
Author Manuscript

This study investigated whether the effect of exposure to code-switching on bilingual children’s
language performance varied depending on verbal working memory. A large sample of school-
aged Spanish-English bilingual children (N = 174, Mage = 7.78) was recruited, and children were
administered language measures in English and Spanish. The frequency with which the children
were exposed to code-switching was gathered through parent report. For children with high verbal
working memory, greater exposure to code-switching was associated with higher levels of
language ability. In contrast, for children with lower verbal working memory, greater exposure to
code-switching was associated with lower levels of language ability. These findings indicate that
children’s cognitive processing capacity dictates whether exposure to code-switching facilitates or
hinders language skills.
Author Manuscript

Keywords
code-switching; language ability; verbal working memory; bilingualism

Code-switching (alternation between languages) is a common practice among bilinguals.

Yet, a robust psycholinguistic literature indicates that code-switching carries processing
costs, both in production (Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013; Fricke, Kroll, & Dussias, 2016; Meuter
& Allport, 1999) and in comprehension (Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner, 1996; Byers-
Heinlein, Morin-Lessard, & Lew-Williams, 2017; Bultena, Dijkstra, & Van Hell, 2015a; b;
Proverbio, Leoni, & Zani, 2004). Why then do bilinguals code-switch? Being able to code-
switch enables bilinguals to precisely express the intended meanings and to circumvent
lexical gaps (Green & Wei, 2014). At the same time, bilinguals appear to be able to
capitalize on subtle speech cues to offset the comprehension costs associated with an
Author Manuscript

upcoming code-switch (Fricke, Kroll, & Dussias, 2016). Thus, generally, the advantages
associated with being able to switch between languages outweigh the (possible) processing
costs associated with a language switch. Perhaps this is why code-switching is rather
common in the speech of bilingual parents, although the degree of mixed-language input in a
bilingual child’s environment varies widely both within and across bilingual communities
(e.g., Bail, Morini, & Newman, 2015; Bentahila & Davies, 1995; Byers-Heinlein, 2013;

Address correspondence to Margarita Kaushanskaya, Waisman Center, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53705. Phone: (608)
263-5764. [email protected].
Margarita Kaushanskaya, Department of Communication Science and Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Kimberly Crespo,
Department of Communication Science and Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison
 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 2

Nicoladis & Secco, 2000; Tare & Gelman, 2011). The question then is: does exposure to
Author Manuscript

code-switching contribute to individual differences in bilingual children’s language abilities,

akin to other qualitative aspects of language input?

Only a few previous studies have examined the relation between exposure to code-switching
and bilingual children’s language performance, and the findings paint a rather confusing
picture. In two studies, Place and Hoff (2011; 2016) found that exposure to mixed-language
input was not associated with language outcomes in 25-to-30 month-old Spanish-English
bilingual children. In both studies, children’s language exposure was measured via a
language diary technique, with parents noting their language use in 30-minute increments.
Parental language mixing was defined as the proportion of waking time during which the
child was exposed to two languages within the same 30-minute block. Notably, this measure
of dual-language input does not distinguish between code-switching and sequential use of
the two languages within the same block of time. Place and Hoff (2011) found no relation
Author Manuscript

between this measure of mixed-language input and children’s productive vocabulary and
grammar, measured via a parent report. In a follow-up study, Place and Hoff (2016)
replicated this null finding, extending it to measures of auditory comprehension and
expressive vocabulary skills measured via standardized tests.

In contrast, a few studies revealed relations between bilingual children’s exposure to code-
switched input and language outcomes, albeit with opposite results. Byers-Heinlein (2013)
examined the relation between a parental-report measure of intra-sentential code-mixing
(using words from two languages within the same sentence) and 18–24-month-old bilingual
children’s performance on English receptive and productive vocabulary measures, also
indexed via a parent report. The findings suggested that increased frequency of parental
language mixing was associated with reduced receptive and productive vocabulary in the
Author Manuscript

children, over and above the effects of English exposure, gender, age, and linguistic balance.
Similarly, Lipsky (2013) found that the amount of code-switching by the teacher during
storybook reading (quantified as the number of Spanish words used by the teacher during an
English reading session) was negatively related to children’s English receptive vocabulary
outcomes, measured via a standardized test. The children in the Lipsky (2013) study were
36–59-month-old Head Start students. In contrast, Bail, Morini, and Newman (2015) found
the opposite pattern, showing that intra-sentential code-switching was positively related to
18–24-month-old bilingual children’s vocabulary size. Unlike Byers-Heinlein (2014), Bail et
al. (2015) derived an objective measure of code-switching, which they obtained from a
parent-child interaction sample; their measure of productive vocabulary size was the same
parent-report measure used by Byers-Heinlein (2013). How then to reconcile the rather
conflicting findings across these studies?
Author Manuscript

Beyond considering the obvious methodological culprits (the distinct approaches to

measuring mixed-language input and the different indexes of language ability used in these
studies), there is a theoretically grounded possibility related to individual differences in
children’s ability to process code-switched input. Verbal working memory is a capacity-
constrained system with well-documented individual differences in the population
(Pickering & Gathercole, 2001). A classic theory of language comprehension anchors
individual differences in language comprehension ability to individual differences in

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 3

working memory capacity (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Daneman and Merikle, 1996), with
Author Manuscript

extensive empirical evidence supporting a strong relation between comprehension and WM

measures such as the backward digit-span, in bilingual (e.g., Buac, Gross, & Kaushanskaya,
2016; Cockroft, 2016; Engel de Abreau et al., 2011; Kormos & Safar, 2008) but also in
monolingual (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Chrysochoou, Bablekou, Masoura, &
Tsigilis, 2013; Leather & Henry; 1994; Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005; Verhagen & Leseman,
2016) children. Daneman and Carpenter (1980) argued that weaknesses in WM would lead
to deficits in comprehension, particularly for the more demanding comprehension tasks that
require integration of words, phrases, and sentences into a coherent whole. Processing of
code-switched input may constitute just such a task, with a language switch posing
processing and integration costs (Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner, 1996; Bultena, Dijkstra,
& Van Hell, 2015a; b; Proverbio, Leoni, & Zani, 2004), and inducing an increased cognitive
load (Byers-Heinlein, Morin-Lessard, & Lew-Williams, 2017). In fact, neuroimaging
Author Manuscript

literature has revealed that code-switches encountered during comprehension tasks elicit
responses that suggest an increased effort in memory updating processes (e.g., Moreno,
Federmeier, & Kutas, 2002; van Der Meijet al., 2011). Thus, the hypothesis we tested in the
present study was that children with different levels of verbal working memory capacity may
respond to code-switched input in distinct ways.

Specifically, we hypothesized that children with lower levels of verbal working memory
capacity would find code-switched input challenging, and thus we predicted a negative
association between increased amounts of code-switched input and language skills for
children with lower levels of verbal working memory. We predicted that children with higher
levels of working memory capacity would find it easier to process code-switched input, and
that thus code-switched input may not affect or may even facilitate their language skills.
There is a number of reasons why children’s language skills might benefit from code-
Author Manuscript

switched input. For instance, code-switched input may highlight translation equivalents (Bail
et al., 2015) thus facilitating vocabulary acquisition across both languages. It may also draw
children’s attention to the pragmatic situations within which language input unfolds (Yow &
Markman, 2016), thus enhancing the child’s ability to acquire linguistic information from a
communicative exchange. These possibilities are entirely speculative, and our goal was not
to adjudicate between them. Rather, we aimed to examine whether in principle it is possible
for code-switched input to be associated with positive language outcomes in some bilingual
children.

Our hypothesis regarding the moderating effects of verbal working memory on the relation
between exposure to code-switching and language outcomes is conceptually similar to the
classic threshold hypothesis of bilingual language development (e.g., Cummins, 1976; 1979;
Author Manuscript

1984; 2000). While the focus of the threshold hypothesis was transfer of linguistic
knowledge between a bilingual’s two languages, with the degree of transfer hypothesized to
depend on whether bilinguals attained threshold levels of language proficiency in their two
languages, it has also been used to explain how fluctuations in bilinguals’ language
proficiency influence performance on language-specific (e.g., Cha & Goldenberg, 2015) and
cognitive measures (e.g., Ricciardelli, 1992). Here, we hypothesized that threshold levels of
verbal working memory capacity may be necessary in order to observe beneficial effects of
code-switched input on bilingual children’s language outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 4

a large sample of school-aged Spanish-English bilingual children. The advantage to testing

Author Manuscript

children in the school-aged range (vs. infants or very young children) is that it enabled us to
administer comprehensive standardized measures of language ability to the children in both
the receptive and the expressive domains, in both languages.

Method
Participants
One hundred seventy-four typically developing Spanish-English bilingual children (88 boys)
between the ages of 5 – 11 years old were recruited. All children passed a bilateral pure tone
hearing screening at 20 dB at 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 4000 Hz. The children were all
exposed to English and Spanish at the time of the study. In general, the children in the study
fell into one of three groups: 43% (n = 75) were exposed to English and Spanish before their
third birthday; 20 % (n = 35) were native Spanish speakers who acquired English upon entry
Author Manuscript

into formal schooling; and 37 % (n = 64) were native English speakers who acquired
Spanish via dual-immersion programs where 50–90% of their school instruction was in
Spanish.

Participants with a history of developmental language delay, participants who were receiving
language therapy services, and children with an organic medical diagnosis were excluded.
Information about primary caregivers’ language use, language proficiency, and
socioeconomic status (operationalized as maternal years of education) was collected through
parent interviews. Information about children’s current language exposure, language
dominance, and language preference was collected through parent questionnaires and a face-
to-face parent interview. In addition, parents completed the Language Experience and
Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q, Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya, 2007) about
Author Manuscript

their own language background and educational history. See Table 1 for participant
characteristics across all the children tested. See Supplementary Materials (Table S1) for
participant characteristics in each of the three sub-groups of the children.

Procedure
Participants were tested individually in a quiet room at the Waisman Center. The children
completed standardized assessments of language and cognition over the course of 3 sessions,
while the parents were interviewed. The interviews with the parents were conducted either in
English or in Spanish, depending on the parent’s proficiency and preference.

Exposure to Code-Switching
The parents were interviewed face-to-face about their child’s language environment. For the
Author Manuscript

purposes of the present study, responses to one question in particular were used to calculate
the amount of exposure to code-switching that each child experienced on a daily basis. We
first provided the parents with our definition of code-switching: “Code-switching is a
communication strategy that some bilinguals use, where they switch back and forth between
languages during conversations with others who speak their two languages. Sometimes they
switch languages from one sentence to the next during the conversation, and sometimes they
switch languages within a single sentence. Code-switches within a sentence may be a single

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 5

word or a larger group of words. Some bilinguals code-switch regularly, while others code-
Author Manuscript

switch rarely, if at all.” Thus, our definition of code-switching encompassed inter- and intra-
sentential code-switching, as well as single-word borrowing.

Parents were provided with a list of individuals that the child could interact with, including
the child’s mother, father, siblings, grandparents, other relatives, friends during play,
classmates at school, adults at school, and strangers. The parents were then asked: “If this
individual/these individuals speak both Spanish and English, how often do they code-switch
around your child?” The parents were provided with a frequency scale, where zero stood for
“never”, five stood for “half the time”, and ten stood for “always.” Ratings were averaged
across all persons to create a measure of average exposure to code-switching that the child
experienced in their environment.

Standardized Measures
Author Manuscript

The Visual Matrices subtest of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2, Kaufman &
Kaufman, 2004) was used to assess children’s non-verbal intelligence. Items on the subtest
require understanding of spatial relations, use of abstract reasoning and of problem-solving
strategies. All children scored within the typical range on this measure (see Table 1).

The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Edition (CELF-4, Semel, Wiig,

& Secord, 2003) was used to evaluate children’s expressive and receptive language abilities
in English. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Spanish Edition
(CELF-4 Spanish, Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 2006) was used to evaluate children’s expressive
and receptive language abilities in Spanish. The following CELF-4 performance indexes
served as dependent variables: Core Language, Receptive Language, and Expressive
Language. This was done in order to examine whether exposure to code-switching affects
Author Manuscript

the different modalities of language use (receptive vs. expressive) to different degrees.
Standard scores were used as performance measures for all these indices.

Core Language is a measure of general language ability that reflects a child’s overall
language performance across both receptive and expressive modalities, and lexical-semantic
and syntactic domains. The Receptive Language index is a measure of auditory
comprehension, while the Expressive Language index is a measure of expressive language
skills. Generally, reliability and validity checks for the CELF-4 composite scores have
revealed adequate reliability and validity.

Verbal Working Memory

Verbal working memory was assessed via the Numbers Reversed subtest from the
Author Manuscript

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG; Woodcock, McGrew, &
Mather, 2001). The children repeated numbers backward in ever increasing sequences. This
measure was administered in English to all children. Standard scores were used in all the
analyses.

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 6

Analyses
Author Manuscript

All de-identified data and scripts have been uploaded into Open Science Framework (https://
doi.org/10.3886/E107441V1). Separate regression models were constructed using R Studio
Version 1.0.153 for each CELF-4 index. Regression tables were constructed using the
package stargazer (Hlavac, 2018). We regressed each CELF-4 index (Core, Receptive, and
Expressive) on verbal working memory (mean centered), exposure to code-switching (mean
centered), and the interaction between them. Therefore, the coefficients of these centered
variables represent the effect of that variable at the average value of the other variables in the
model. Because SES (r =.54), current exposure to English (r =.52), and age of English
acquisition (r = −.37) were correlated with CELF-4 Core Language index scores (see Table
S2 in Supplementary Materials for the full correlation matrix), they were entered as
covariates in all models. That is, our analyses examined the effects of exposure to code-
switching on language performance over and above the effects of SES, language exposure,
Author Manuscript

and age of acquisition. To account for possible multicollinearity among related predictor
variables, Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) were computed for each regression model.
Results indicated a very low level of multicollinearity among variables (VIFs for English
language measures as the outcome variable ranged from 1.17 to 1.49, and VIFs for Spanish
language measures as the outcome variable ranged from 1.14 to 1.68).

Results
English language measures
Across all three indexes of English language performance, a significant interaction was
observed between verbal MW and exposure to code-switching. For the receptive language
index, this interaction remains significant when the covariates are not included in the model.
Author Manuscript

However, it is rendered non-significant for the other dependent variables when the covariates
are excluded from the models. In children with weaker working memory skills, greater
exposure to code-switching was associated with lower language scores. In contrast, in
children with stronger working memory skills, greater exposure to code-switching was
associated with higher language scores. The full models for each of the three English
performance indexes can be found in Table 2. A graphical representation of the interaction
between verbal WM and exposure to code-switching for the three indices can be found in
Figure 1.

Additional findings of note were the following: Across all three analyses, a main effect of
verbal working memory was observed, such that higher verbal working memory scores were
associated with stronger language performance. The main effect of exposure to code-
switching was significant for Expressive Language (F(1, 162) = 6.05, p < .05), with greater
Author Manuscript

exposure to code-switching associated with higher expressive language scores. The main
effect of exposure to code-switching was not statistically significant for Receptive Language
(F(1, 166) = 1.32 , p > .05), and was only marginally significant for Core Language (F(1,
162) = 3.36, p = .07).

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 7

Spanish Language Measures

Author Manuscript

The findings for Spanish language measures patterned similarly to the findings for English
language measures. Across all three indexes of Spanish language performance, a significant
interaction was observed between verbal MW and exposure to code-switching. For the
receptive language index, this interaction remains significant when the covariates are not
included in the model. However, it is rendered non-significant for the other dependent
variables when the covariates are excluded from the models. In children with weaker
working memory skills, greater exposure to code-switching was associated with lower
language scores. In contrast, in children with stronger working memory skills, greater
exposure to code-switching was associated with higher language scores. The full models for
each of the three Spanish performance indexes can be found in Table 3. A graphical
representation of the interaction between verbal WM and exposure to code-switching for the
three indices can be found in Figure 2.
Author Manuscript

Additional findings of note were the following: Verbal WM was significantly associated
with performance on the Spanish Core (F(1, 159) = 6.37, p < .05) and Receptive Language
(F(1, 167) = 19.03, p < .001) Indexes. However, it was not associated with performance on
the Expressive Language Index (F(1, 159) = 2.14, p > .05). Furthermore, across all three
models, there was no main effect of exposure to code-switching.

Discussion
Does exposure to code-switching carry consequences for bilingual children’s language
development? The findings from the current study suggest that it may depend on the
children’s verbal working memory capacity. For children with lower levels of verbal
working memory, code-switched input appears to carry risks, with increased exposure to
Author Manuscript

code-switching associated with reduced language scores. In contrast, for children with
higher levels of verbal working memory, code-switched input does not appear to carry risks,
with increased exposure to code-switching associated with improved language scores.
Notably, these findings hold for both of the bilinguals’ languages, and for both expressive
and receptive language skills.

Our results provide a possible reconciliation for the discrepant findings in the literature, with
some studies indicating null associations between exposure to mixed-language input and
language (Place & Hoff, 2011; 2014), some studies indicating negative effects of exposure to
mixed-language input on language (Byers-Heinlein, 2013; Lipsky, 2013), and one study
suggesting a positive effect of exposure to mixed-language input on language (Bail, Morini,
& Newman, 2015). Our findings also speak to the broader psycholinguistic literature on
Author Manuscript

language switching, where a small number of studies has failed to demonstrate processing
costs associated with comprehending mixed-language input (Gullifer, Kroll, & Dussias,
2013; Kohnert & Bates, 2002), challenging the larger literature indicating that
comprehension of code-switched input is more effortful than comprehension of single-
language input (Altarriba, et al., 1996; Bultena, et al., 2015a; b; Proverbio et al., 2004). It is
possible that at least some of the discrepancies across studies may be the result of
fluctuations in participants’ verbal working memory skills.

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 8

Why may children with different levels of verbal working memory respond differently to
Author Manuscript

code-switched input? At the very least, code-switched input is more variable than single-
language input, and it may be more challenging. The basic ability to process such input
therefore should logically underpin the ability to acquire information from it. Individual
differences in verbal working memory have been tightly linked with variability in children’s
language outcomes (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Engel de Abreu & Gathercole,
2012; Kormos & Sáfár, 2008; Verhagen & Leseman, 2016). Therefore, a certain threshold
level of verbal working memory capacity may be necessary in order to efficiently process
linguistic information embedded in code-switched input. However, the correlational nature
of the data preclude a causal interpretation of the relation among the variables under study.
In fact, it is possible that verbal working memory and exposure to code-switching (for
instance) enjoy a bi-directional connection, where increased verbal working memory
capacity is associated with enhanced ability to process code-switching input, and in turn,
Author Manuscript

code-switched input may boost the development of the verbal working memory system as it
works to accommodate to such input. In interpreting the findings, it is important to
acknowledge that while the statistical effect of the interaction between verbal WM capacity
and exposure to code-switching was indeed significant, it was quite small. It is also
important to acknowledge that while we statistically controlled for the effects of maternal
years of education, language exposure, and age of acquisition in the analyses, this may not
have accounted for the effects of SES or the effects of language proficiency and balance
fully. Finally, we do not envision verbal working memory to be the only moderator of the
relation between exposure to code-switching and language outcomes in bilingual children. A
range of cognitive skills (including inhibitory control and phonological short-term memory),
a range of linguistic skills (e.g., degree of balance between the two languages; robustness of
the linguistic skills in the two languages; etc.), and a range of experiences (e.g., extent to
which code-switching is practiced in the community; extent to which the child engages in
Author Manuscript

code-switching; etc.) may contribute to the strength and the direction of an association
between exposure to code-switched input and language skills.

What are the implications of our findings? For researchers working in the area of bilingual
language development, our findings indicate that fluctuations in bilingual children’s
language-specific abilities are related not only to absolute levels of exposure to their two
languages but also to the type of exposure. This notion is not a new one. Hoff and colleagues
(Place & Hoff, 2011; 2016) have shown that quality of bilingual language input contributes
to bilingual children’s language outcomes over and above exposure levels. In their studies,
they hypothesized that mixed-language input might function similarly to non-native input,
with both types of input characterized as lower quality input (compared to single-language
and native language input). What they found instead was a lack of an association between
Author Manuscript

their measure of mixed-language input and children’s language performance. Our results
indicate that mixed-language input may in fact serve as high-quality input, but only for a
subset of children capable of processing such input.

One important consideration for future work is the possibility that different types of code-
switching behaviors in children’s language environment may carry distinct consequences for
bilingual children’s language development. That is, switches within a single sentence,
including single-word borrowings, may induce different processing strategies than switches

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 9

across sentences (e.g., Byers-Heinlein, Morin-Lessard, & Lew-Williams, 2017). In our

Author Manuscript

study, we collapsed across all types of code-switching behaviors, and thus obtained a rather
global measure of exposure to code-switched input. Future studies may consider
disentangling different types of code-switching behaviors, and it will be important to
examine the reliability with which parents can report on the different types of code-
switching behaviors.

In general, whether parents are reliable in their reports of code-switching behaviors is an

open question. While Place and Hoff (2016) found that parental responses on Byers-
Heinlein’s (2013) Language Mixing Scale correlated with language-diary-based measures of
parental code-switching, Bail, Morini, and Newman (2015) observed a lack of concordance
between parents’ self-reports of code-switching behavior and the actual number of code-
switches they produced. We asked the parents in the present study to report not only on the
frequency of their own code-switching, but also on the frequency of other individuals’ code-
Author Manuscript

switching behaviors, and the reliability of these reports remains to be established. This
approach may have been especially problematic for a subset of bilingual children in our
study who were exposed to both of their languages only in the school setting (see Table S1
in Supplementary Materials).

We also did not collect information regarding the amount of input that the children received
from each source because we were uncertain about how to incorporate this information into
a measure of code-switching exposure. We therefore acknowledge that a lot of additional
research is needed to establish reliable indexes of code-switching exposure. In the absence
of such a measure at the current point in time, our measure is a viable option that has a
number of advantages over the few available alternatives. For instance, because of its broad
nature, it may be more sensitive to fluctuations in code-switching exposure than more fine-
Author Manuscript

grained measures that may also be more difficult for the parents to evaluate (e.g., intra-
sentential code-switching). At the same time, our measure of code-switching exposure is
more fine-grained than the diary measure employed by Place and Hoff (2016), for example,
because it clearly instructs the parents to report on the amount of code-switching that
particular individuals produce.

In conclusion, we would offer the following cautious interpretation of our findings:

Exposure to code-switching does not carry risks, and may in fact be associated with better
language outcomes in children who are capable of processing such input. However, exposure
to code-switching may not be optimal for language development in children who may have
difficulties processing such input. Of course, in view of the limitations of the parent report
measure of exposure to code-switching and in view of the rather weak, albeit significant
Author Manuscript

interaction between verbal working memory capacity and exposure to code-switching, it is

premature to offer any practical recommendations based on our findings. Notably, in our
study, we targeted only typically-developing children, and therefore the next logical step for
this line of research is to examine the association between exposure to code-switching and
language outcomes in children with language impairment. Because working memory deficits
are well-established in children with language impairment (e.g., Archibald & Gathercole,
2003; Ellis Weismer, Evans, & Hesketh, 1999; Montgomery, 2000), we would venture to
hypothesize that our findings for the children with lower levels of verbal working memory

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 10

would also pertain to children with language impairment. However, our findings in no way
Author Manuscript

suggest that exposure to two languages is detrimental to language outcomes in bilingual

children. Rather, they indicate a possibility that certain ways of structuring the bilingual
language environment may be more optimal for the children who may have difficulty
processing language.

Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.

Acknowledgments
The present project was supported by NIDCD Grants: R03 DC010465, R01 DC011750 to Margarita
Kaushanskaya , and a Training Grant T32 DC005359 to Susan Ellis Weismer. We extend our gratitude to the
families who participated in the present study, to the students in the Language Acquisition and Bilingualism Lab for
Author Manuscript

their assistance with data collection and data coding, and to the schools in the Madison Metropolitan School district
who generously aided in participant recruitment.

References
Altarriba J, Kroll JF, Sholl A, & Rayner K (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints
on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory &
Cognition, 24, 477–92. [PubMed: 8757496]
Archibald L, & Gathercole S (2006). Short-term and working memory in specific language
impairment. International Journal of Communicative Disorders, 41, 675–693.
doi:10.1080/13682820500442602
Bail A, Morini G, & Newman RS (2015). Look at the gato! Code-switching in speech to toddlers.
Journal of Child Language, 42, 1073–1101. doi:10.1017/S0305000914000695 [PubMed: 25362846]
Bentahila A, & Eirlys ED (1995). Patterns of code-switching and patterns of language contact. Lingua,
96, 75–93.
Author Manuscript

Bobb SC, & Wodniecka Z (2013). Language switching in picture naming: What asymmetric switch
costs (do not) tell us about inhibition in bilingual speech planning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
25, 568–585. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.792822
Buac M, Gross M, & Kaushanskaya M (2016). Predictors of processing-based task performance in
bilingual and monolingual children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 62, 12–29. doi:10.1016/
j.jcomdis.2016.04.001 [PubMed: 27179914]
Bultena S, Dijkstra T, & Van Hell JG (2015a). Language switch costs in sentence comprehension
depend on language dominance: Evidence from self-paced reading. Bilingualism: Language &
Cognition, 18, 453–469. doi:10.1017/S1366728914000145
Bultena S, Dijkstra T, & Van Hell JG (2015b). Switch cost modulations in bilingual sentence
processing: evidence from shadowing. Language, Cognition, & Neuroscience, 30, 586–605.
doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.964268
Byers-Heinlein K (2013). Parental language mixing: Its measurement and the relation of mixed input
to young bilingual children’s vocabulary size. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 32 – 48.
Author Manuscript

doi:10.1017/S1366728912000120
Byers-Heinlein K, Morin-Lessard E, & Lew-Williams C (2017). Bilingual infants control their
languages as they listen. PNAS, 114, 34. doi:10.1073/pnas.1703220114
Cain K, Oakhill JV, & Bryant PE (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent
prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 31–42.
Cha K, & Goldenberg C (2015). The complex relationship between bilingual home language input and
kindergarten children’s Spanish and English oral proficiencies. Journal of Educational Psychology,
107, 935–953. 10.1037/edu0000030

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 11

Chrysochoou E, Bablekou Z, Masoura E, & Tsigilis N (2013). Working memory and vocabulary
development in Greek preschool and primary school children. European Journal of Developmental
Author Manuscript

Psychology, 10, 417–432. 10.1080/17405629.2012.686656

Cockroft K (2016). A comparison between verbal working memory and vocabulary in bilingual and
monolingual South African school beginners: implications for bilingual language assessment.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 74–88.
10.1080/13670050.2014.964172
Cummins J (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research
findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1–43.
Cummins J (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.
Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251. 10.3102/00346543049002222
Cummins J (1984). Bilingualism and cognitive functioning In Shapson S and D’Oyley V (Eds.),
Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives (pp. 55–70). Clevedon, United
Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins J (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon,
United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Author Manuscript

Daneman M & Carpenter PA (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
Daneman M & Merikle PM (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546. [PubMed: 24213976]
Ellis Weismer S, Evans J, & Hesketh L (1999). An examination of verbal working memory capacity in
children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
42, 1249–1260. 10.1044/jslhr.4205.1249
Engel de Abreu PMJ, Gathercole SE, & Martin R (2011). Disentangling the relationship between
working memory and language: The roles of short-term storage and cognitive control. Learning
and Individual Differences, 21, 569–574. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.002
Engel de Abreu PMJ, & Gathercole SE (2012). Executive and phonological processes in second-
language acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 974–986. 10.1037/a0028390
Fricke M, Kroll JF, & Dussias PE (2016). Phonetic variation in bilingual speech: A lens for studying
the production-comprehension link. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 110–137. doi:10.1016/
Author Manuscript

j.jml.2015.10.001 [PubMed: 27429511]

Green DW, & Wei L (2014). A control process model of code-switching. Language, Cognition, and
Neuroscience, 29, 499–511. 10.1080/23273798.2014.882515
Gullifer JW, Kroll JF, & Dussias PE (2013). When language switching has no apparent cost: lexical
access in sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 278. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00278
[PubMed: 23750141]
Hlavac Marek (2018). stargazer: Well-Formatted Regression and Summary Statistics Tables. R
package version 5.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer
Kaufman AS, & Kaufman NL (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition Bloomington,
MN: Pearson, Inc.
Kohnert KJ, & Bates E (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive
processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 45, 347–359. 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/027)
Kormos J, & Sáfár A (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory, and foreign
language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11,
Author Manuscript

261–271. 10.1017/S1366728908003416
Leather CV, & Henry LA (1994). Working memory span and phonological awareness tasks as
predictors of early reading ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 88–111.
doi:10.1006/jecp.1994.1027 [PubMed: 8064220]
Lipsky MG (2013). Head Start teachers’ vocabulary instruction and language complexity during
storybook reading: Predicting vocabulary outcomes of students in linguistically diverse
classrooms. Early Education and Development, 24, 640–667. doi: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-
L-12-0221

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 12

Marian V, Blumenfeld HK, & Kaushanskaya M (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency
Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of
Author Manuscript

Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967. 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)

Meuter RFI, & Allport A (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of
language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2602
Montgomery J (2000). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension in children with specific
language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 293–308. 10.1044/
jslhr.4302.293
Moreno EM, Federmeier KD, & Kutas M (2002). Switching languages, switches palabras (words): An
electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language, 80, 188–207. doi:10.1006/
brln.2001.2588 [PubMed: 11827443]
Nicoladis E, & Secco G (2000). The role of a child’s productive vocabulary in the language choice of a
bilingual family. First Language, 20, 3–28. 10.1177/014272370002005801
Pickering S, & Gathercole SE (2001). Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTBC).
London, UK: The Psychological Corporation.
Place S & Hoff E (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence two-year-olds’ bilingual
Author Manuscript

proficiency. Child Development, 82, 1834–1849. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01660.x

[PubMed: 22004372]
Place S, & Hoff E (2016). Effects and noneffects of input in bilingual environments on dual language
skills in 21/2-year-olds. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 1023–1041. 10.1017/
S1366728915000322
Proverbio AM, Leoni G & Zani A (2004). Language switching mechanisms in simultaneous
interpreters: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1636–1656. doi:10.1016/
j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.013 [PubMed: 15327931]
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria URL: https://www.R-project.org/.
Ricciardelli LA (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to threshold theory.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 301–316. 10.1007/BF01067515 [PubMed: 1403995]
Seigneuric A, & Ehrlich MF (2005). Contribution of working memory capacity to children’s reading
comprehension: A longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
Author Manuscript

18, 617–656. 10.1007/s11145-005-2038-0

Semel E, Wiig EH, & Secord WA (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals, fourth edition
(CELF-4). Toronto, Canada: The Psychological Corporation/A Harcourt Assessment Company.
Tare M, & Gelman SA (2011). Bilingual parents’ modeling of pragmatic language use in multiparty
interactions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 761–780. doi:10.1017/S0142716411000051 [PubMed:
24086092]
van Der Meij M, Cuetos F, Carreiras M, & Barber H (2011). Electrophysiological correlates of
language switching in second language learners. Psychophysiology, 48, 44–54. doi:10.1111/
j.1469-8986.2010.01039.x [PubMed: 21143487]
Verhagen J, & Leseman P (2016). How do verbal short-term memory and working memory relate to
the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar? A comparison between first and second language
learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 65–82. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.015
[PubMed: 26340756]
Yow WQ, & Markman EM (2016). Children increase their sensitivity to a speaker’s nonlinguistic cues
following a communication breakdown. Child Development, 87, 385–394. doi:10.1111/cdev.12479
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 26841131]
Wiig EH, Secord WA, & Semel E (2006). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals- Fourth
Edition Spanish. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt PsychCorp.
Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, & Mather N (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities and
Tests of Achievement(3rd ed). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 13
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Interaction between working memory and exposure to code-switching for CELF-4 English
Indices. Raw data are presented. Although verbal working memory was measured as a
continuous variable in all models, the graphs were created by splitting verbal working
Author Manuscript

memory abilities by thirds.

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 14
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Interaction between working memory and exposure to code-switching for CELF-4 Spanish
Indices. Raw data are presented. Although verbal working memory was measured as a
continuous variable in all models, the graphs were created by splitting verbal working
Author Manuscript

memory abilities by thirds.

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 15

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics, Means (SDs)

Author Manuscript

N = 174

Gender 88 boys; 86 girls

Age 7.78 (1.55)
a 15.04 (4.10)
Maternal Years of Education
b 106.80 (14.88)
IQ
Age at first exposure to English (months) 10.74 (19.75)
Age at first exposure to Spanish (months) 24.16 (29.29)
c 59 (20)
Current English Exposure (%)
d 2.86 (1.68)
Exposure to Code-Switching
e 96.63 (18.82)
English Core Language
Author Manuscript

e 102.6 (14.56)
English Receptive Language
e 95.76 (19.07)
English Expressive Language
f 86.67 (15.38)
Spanish Core Language
f 99.03 (13.22)
Spanish Receptive Language
f 83.01 (15.87)
Spanish Expressive Language
g 102.28 (16.25)
Verbal Working Memory
Language heard at school
English only 44
Spanish at least 50% of time 130
Language heard at home
Author Manuscript

Mostly English 91
Mostly Spanish 62
Both English and Spanish 21
Language spoken at home
Mostly English 101
Mostly Spanish 49
Both English and Spanish 24
h
Parent Language Proficiency
English
Speaking 8.1 (2.44)
Understanding 8.53 (2.16)
Reading 8.34 (2.48)
Author Manuscript

Spanish
Speaking 6.92 (3.42)
Understanding 7.45 (2.99)
Reading 7.03 (3.14)

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 16

a
Used as proxy for Socio Economic Status
b
Standard Score; Matrices subtest of Kaufmann Brief Intelligence Test-II
c
Parental report of exposure to language during waking hours in a typical week
Author Manuscript

d
Parental report of average exposure to code-switching that the child experienced in their day-to-day environment on a frequency scale from 0–10
e
Standard score; Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4
f
Standard score; Spanish Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4
g
Standard score; Numbers reversed subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities
h
Parent Spanish and English self-reported proficiency (0-to-10 scale)
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 17

Table 2.

Regression Models for English CELF-4 Indices, B(SE)

Author Manuscript

Dependent variables

Core Language Receptive Language Expressive Language

Intercept 66.37*** (4.88) 87.15*** (3.99) 63.35*** (4.91)

a 1.20*** (0.29) 0.99*** (0.24) 1.28*** (0.29)
SES
b 26.47*** (6.33) 6.95 (5.23) 28.09*** (6.37)
Current Exposure to English
c −0.16** (0.06) −0.16** (0.05) −0.16** (0.06)
AoA English
d 6.54*** (1.14) 4.77*** (0.95) 6.19*** (1.15)
Working Memory
e † 1.08 (0.94) 2.63* (1.16)
Exposure to CS 2.10 (1.15)
f 2.54* (1.04) 2.79** (0.86) 2.58* (1.05)
WM:CS
Author Manuscript

g 0.035 0.059 0.036

ηp² WM:CS

Observations 169 173 169

R2 0.52 0.44 0.52

Adjusted R2 0.50 0.42 0.50

F Statistic 28.87*** 21.73*** 29.20***

(df = 6; 162) (df = 6; 166) (df = 6; 162)

Note:
†
p < 0.10,
*
p <0.05;
**
p <0.01;
Author Manuscript

***
p <0.001
a
Socio Economic Status measured by maternal years of education
b
Parental report of percent exposure to English during waking hours in a typical week
c
Parental report of first exposure to English
d
Woodcock-Johnson III Number Reversed scores
e
Amount of code-switching heard on a 0–10 scale, averaged across family and school persons
f
Interaction between working memory and exposure to code-switching
g
Effect size of interaction; partial eta squared
Author Manuscript

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

 Kaushanskaya and Crespo Page 18

Table 3.

Regression Models for Spanish CELF-4 Indices, B(SE)

Author Manuscript

Dependent variables

Core Language Receptive Language Expressive Language

Intercept 67.83*** (6.25) 89.85*** (5.53) 64.55*** (6.10)

a 0.35 (0.31) 0.37** (0.27) 0.25 (0.31)
SES
b 37.37*** (6.75) 11.37** (6.10) 42.07*** (6.60)
Current Exposure to Spanish
c −0.04 (0.05) −0.02 (0.04) −0.07 (0.04)
AoA Spanish
d 2.89* (1.14) 4.53*** (1.04) 1.64 (1.12)
Working Memory
e 0.67 (1.16) 0.64 (1.04) 0.09 (1.13)
Exposure to CS
f 2.18* (1.03) 1.95* (0.94) 2.26** (1.01)
WM:CS
Author Manuscript

g 0.027 0.025 0.031

ηp² WM:CS

Observations 166 174 166

R2 0.28 0.18 0.35

Adjusted R2 0.25 0.15 0.33

F Statistic 10.30*** 6.18*** 14.54***

(df = 6;159) (df = 6; 167) (df = 6;159)

Note:
*
p <0.05;
**
p <0.01;
***
p <0.001
Author Manuscript

a
Socio Economic Status measured by maternal years of education
b
Parental report of percent exposure to Spanish during waking hours in a typical week
c
Parental report of first exposure to Spanish
d
Woodcock-Johnson III Number Reversed scores
e
Amount of code-switching heard on a 0–10 scale, averaged across family and school persons
f
Interaction between working memory and exposure to code-switching
g
Effect size of interaction; partial eta squared
Author Manuscript

Child Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

View publication stats