Home Linguistics & Semiotics The Complementary Principle and language dominance: mapping the language–domain relationships of Spanish–English bilinguals
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The Complementary Principle and language dominance: mapping the language–domain relationships of Spanish–English bilinguals

  • Daniel J. Olson ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Lori Czerwionka ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: December 23, 2024

Abstract

While language dominance has been crucial in the study of bilingualism, recent research has called for more detailed measures to systematically account for the observation that bilinguals use different languages in different domains, a phenomenon formalized in the Complementary Principle. Few studies have systematically measured these language–domain relationships. Addressing these gaps, this study employs a novel, mixed-methods approach to identify the links between domain (i.e., topic) and language and to examine the effect of language dominance on language–domain relationships. Spanish–English bilinguals in the U.S. (N = 443) responded to open-ended prompts about the topics they discuss in each of their two languages and when code-switching. A qualitative thematic analysis was used to identify relevant topic categories and examine the relationships between topic and language. Subsequent analysis examined variability in language-domain mappings of bilinguals from across the language dominance continuum. Results showed that Spanish was most associated with topics of family and day-to-day life and English with academics and work. Little differentiation in language–domain mappings was found between English-dominant, Spanish-dominant, and balanced bilinguals. Findings are discussed with a focus on the methodological contributions and the implications for integrating the Complementary Principle in measures of language dominance.

Abstract en Español

La dominancia lingüística ha sido fundamental en el estudio del bilingüismo, e investigaciones recientes indican la necesidad de crear medidas más detalladas que incorporen sistemáticamente el hecho de que las personas bilingües usan diferentes idiomas en diferentes ámbitos, un fenómeno formalizado en el Principio de Complementariedad (Complementary Principle). Pocos estudios han medido sistemáticamente estas relaciones entre idioma y ámbito. Para abordar estos vacíos, este estudio emplea una novedosa metodología mixta para explorar los vínculos entre ámbito (i.e., tema) e idioma y para examinar el efecto del dominio del idioma en estas relaciones entre idioma y ámbito. Los participantes bilingües de español e inglés que viven en los Estados Unidos (N = 443) respondieron a preguntas abiertas sobre los temas que discuten en cada uno de sus dos idiomas y los que discuten cuando alternan entre ambos. Se utilizó un análisis temático cualitativo para identificar las categorías de temas relevantes y examinar las relaciones entre el tema y el idioma. Un análisis posterior examinó la variabilidad en las relaciones entre idioma y ámbito de los bilingües a lo largo del continuo de dominancia lingüística. Los resultados mostraron que el español se asoció más con temas de familia y la vida cotidiana y el inglés con temas académicos y laborales. Se encontró poca diferenciación entre el uso del idioma y el ámbito en los bilingües dominantes en inglés, dominantes en español y bilingües balanceados. El artículo presenta aportaciones metodológicas y sugiere implicaciones para la integración del Principio de Complementariedad en las medidas de dominancia lingüística.


Corresponding author: Daniel J. Olson, Purdue University, 640 Oval Dr., West Lafayette, IN, 47906, United States, E-mail:

Award Identifier / Grant number: ASPIRE Grant

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Sage Morrison for her invaluable efforts on the data coding for this project, as well as all of our participants for their contributions.

References

Anderson, John A., Lorinda Mak, Arum Keyvani Chahi & Ellen Bialystok. 2018. The language and social background questionnaire: Assessing degree of bilingualism in a diverse population. Behavior Research Methods 50. 250–263. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0867-9.Search in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1998. Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversation. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Birdsong, David. 2014. Dominance and age in bilingualism. Applied Linguistics 35. 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu031.Search in Google Scholar

Birdsong, David. 2016. Dominance in bilingualism: Foundations of measurement, with insights from the study of handedness. In Carmen Silva-Corvalán & Jeanine Treffers-Daller (eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization, 85–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107375345.005.Search in Google Scholar

Birdsong, David, Libby M. Gertken & Mark Amengual. 2012. Bilingual language profile: An easy-to-use instrument to assess bilingualism. COERLL, University of Texas at Austin. https://sites.la.utexas.edu/bilingual/.Search in Google Scholar

Black, Martha, Marc F. Joanisse & Yasaman Rafat. 2020. Language dominance modulates the perception of Spanish approximants in late bilinguals. Languages 5(1). 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages5010007.Search in Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan & Ad Backus. 2013. Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. In Ingrid de Saint-Georges & Jean-Jacques Weber (eds.), Multilingualism and multimodality, 9–32. Leiden: Brill.10.1007/978-94-6209-266-2_2Search in Google Scholar

Braun, Virginia & Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2). 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Search in Google Scholar

Busch, Brigitta. 2012. The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5). 503–523. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams056.Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, Ryall & David Luna. 2011. The other meaning of fluency. Journal of Advertising 40(3). 73–84. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400306.Search in Google Scholar

Chiaro, Delia. 2009. Cultural divide or unifying factor. In Neal Norrick & Delia Chiaro (eds.), Humor in interaction, 211–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.182.10chiSearch in Google Scholar

Corbin, Juliet & Anselm Strauss. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1). 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00988593.Search in Google Scholar

Corbin, Juliet & Anselm Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research (3rd Edition): Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781452230153Search in Google Scholar

de Bruin, Angela. 2019. Not all bilinguals are the same: A call for more detailed assessments and descriptions of bilingual experiences. Behavioral Sciences 9(33). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030033.Search in Google Scholar

Dunn, Alexandra L., & Jean E. Fox Tree. 2009. A quick, gradient bilingual dominance scale. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(3). 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990113.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, James E., Ian R. MacKay & Thorsten Piske. 2002. Assessing bilingual dominance. Applied Psycholinguistics 23(4). 567–598. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716402004046.Search in Google Scholar

Fuller, Janet M. & Jennifer Leeman. 2020. Speaking Spanish in the US: The sociopolitics of language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781788928298Search in Google Scholar

Gertken, Libby M., Mark Amengual & David Birdsong. 2014. Assessing language dominance with the bilingual language profile. In Pascale Leclercq, Amanda Edmonds & Howard Hilton (eds.), Measuring L2 proficiency: Perspectives from SLA, 208–225. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783092291-014Search in Google Scholar

Gollan, Tamar H., Gali H. Weissberger, Elin Runnqvist, Rosa I. Montoya & Cynthia M. Cera. 2012. Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A multilingual naming test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(3). 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000332.Search in Google Scholar

Grosjean, François. 1997. The bilingual individual. Interpreting 2(1-2). 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.2.1-2.07gro.Search in Google Scholar

Grosjean, François. 2008. Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199281282.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Grosjean, François. 2010. Bilingualism, biculturalism, and deafness. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13(2). 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050903474051.Search in Google Scholar

Grosjean, François. 2016. The Complementarity Principle and its impact on processing, acquisition, and dominance. In Carmen Silva-Corvalán & Jeanine Treffers-Daller (eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization, 66–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107375345.004Search in Google Scholar

Gullifer, Jason W. & Debra Titone. 2020. Characterizing the social diversity of bilingualism using language entropy. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(2). 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000026.Search in Google Scholar

Gumperz, John J. 1964. Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist 66(6). 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00100. https://www.jstor.org/stable/668168.Search in Google Scholar

Hauser, David J. & Norbert Schwarz. 2016. Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavioral Research 48. 400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z.Search in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, Jan H. 2011. Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly 8(3). 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565844.Search in Google Scholar

Kaushanskaya, Margarita, Henrike K. Blumenfeld & Viorica Marian. 2020. The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Ten years later. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(5). 945–950. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000038.Search in Google Scholar

Marian, Viorica, Henrike K. Blumenfeld & Margarita Kaushanskaya. 2007. The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Language, Speech and Hearing Research 50(4). 940–967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, Jennifer, Jeanette Altarriba & Stephanie Kazanas. 2020. Is it possible to predict which bilingual speakers have switched language dominance? A discriminant analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 41(3). 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1603236.Search in Google Scholar

Montrul, Silvina. 2016. Dominance and proficiency in early and late bilingualism. In Carmen Silva-Corvalán & Jeanine Treffers-Daller (eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization, 66–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107375345.002Search in Google Scholar

Olson, Daniel J. 2019. Phonological processes across word and language boundaries: Evidence from code-switching. Journal of Phonetics 77. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100937.Search in Google Scholar

Olson, Daniel J. 2023. Measuring language dominance: An examination of the reliability of the Bilingual Language Profile. Language Testing 40(3). 521–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221139162.Search in Google Scholar

Olson, Daniel J. 2024. The bilingual code-switching profile (BCSP): Assessing the reliability and validity of the BCSP questionnaire. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14(3). 400–433. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.21039.ols.Search in Google Scholar

Sheng, Li, Ying Lu & Tamar H. Gollan. 2014. Assessing language dominance in Mandarin–English bilinguals: Convergence and divergence between subjective and objective measures. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(2). 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000424.Search in Google Scholar

Solís-Barroso, Cecilia & Sara Stefanich. 2019. Measuring language dominance in early Spanish/English bilinguals. Languages 4(3). 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4030062.Search in Google Scholar

Terry, Gareth, Nikki Hayfield, Victoria Clarke & Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. In Cara Willig & Wendy Stainton Rogers (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 2nd edn. 17–37. London: Sage Publications Ltd.10.4135/9781526405555.n2Search in Google Scholar

Treffers-Daller, Jeanine. 2016. Language dominance: The construct, its measure, and operationalization. In Carmen Silva-Corvalán & Jeanine Treffers-Daller (eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization, 235–265. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107375345.012Search in Google Scholar

Treffers-Daller, Jeanine. 2019. What defines language dominance in bilinguals? Annual Review of Linguistics 5. 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045554.Search in Google Scholar

Zentella, Ana Celia. 1997. Growing up bilingual. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-04-17
Accepted: 2024-11-21
Published Online: 2024-12-23
Published in Print: 2025-03-26

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 21.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/multi-2024-0079/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button