Monolingual comparative normativity in bilingualism research is out of “control”: Arguments and alternatives

IF 2.4 2区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Applied Psycholinguistics Pub Date : 2022-11-11 DOI:10.1017/S0142716422000315

J. Rothman, F. Bayram, V. DeLuca, Grazia Di Pisa, J. Duñabeitia, Khadijeh Gharibi, Jiuzhou Hao, Nadine Kolb, Maki Kubota, T. Kupisch, T. Laméris, Alicia Luque, Brechje van Osch, S. M. Pereira Soares, Yanina Prystauka, D. Tat, Aleksandra Tomić, T. Voits, Stefanie Wulff

{"title":"Monolingual comparative normativity in bilingualism research is out of “control”: Arguments and alternatives","authors":"J. Rothman, F. Bayram, V. DeLuca, Grazia Di Pisa, J. Duñabeitia, Khadijeh Gharibi, Jiuzhou Hao, Nadine Kolb, Maki Kubota, T. Kupisch, T. Laméris, Alicia Luque, Brechje van Osch, S. M. Pereira Soares, Yanina Prystauka, D. Tat, Aleksandra Tomić, T. Voits, Stefanie Wulff","doi":"10.1017/S0142716422000315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Herein, we contextualize, problematize, and offer some insights for moving beyond the problem of monolingual comparative normativity in (psycho) linguistic research on bilingualism. We argue that, in the vast majority of cases, juxtaposing (functional) monolinguals to bilinguals fails to offer what the comparison is supposedly intended to do: meet the standards of empirical control in line with the scientific method. Instead, the default nature of monolingual comparative normativity has historically contributed to inequalities in many facets of bilingualism research and continues to impede progress on multiple levels. Beyond framing our views on the matter, we offer some epistemological considerations and methodological alternatives to this standard practice that improve empirical rigor while fostering increased diversity, inclusivity, and equity in our field.","PeriodicalId":48065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psycholinguistics","volume":"44 1","pages":"316 - 329"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psycholinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716422000315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 20

Abstract

Abstract Herein, we contextualize, problematize, and offer some insights for moving beyond the problem of monolingual comparative normativity in (psycho) linguistic research on bilingualism. We argue that, in the vast majority of cases, juxtaposing (functional) monolinguals to bilinguals fails to offer what the comparison is supposedly intended to do: meet the standards of empirical control in line with the scientific method. Instead, the default nature of monolingual comparative normativity has historically contributed to inequalities in many facets of bilingualism research and continues to impede progress on multiple levels. Beyond framing our views on the matter, we offer some epistemological considerations and methodological alternatives to this standard practice that improve empirical rigor while fostering increased diversity, inclusivity, and equity in our field.

查看原文本刊更多论文

双语研究中的单语比较规范性失控:争论与替代

摘要在本文中，我们将语境化、问题化，并为在双语（心理）语言学研究中超越单语比较规范性问题提供一些见解。我们认为，在绝大多数情况下，将（功能性）单语与双语并列并不能提供比较的目的：符合科学方法的经验控制标准。相反，单语比较规范性的默认性质在历史上造成了双语研究的许多方面的不平等，并继续阻碍多个层面的进展。除了阐述我们对这一问题的看法外，我们还为这一标准实践提供了一些认识论考虑和方法论替代方案，以提高经验的严谨性，同时促进我们领域的多样性、包容性和公平性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Applied Psycholinguistics Multiple-

CiteScore

3.90

自引率

4.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： Applied Psycholinguistics publishes original research papers on the psychological processes involved in language. It examines language development , language use and language disorders in adults and children with a particular emphasis on cross-language studies. The journal gathers together the best work from a variety of disciplines including linguistics, psychology, reading, education, language learning, speech and hearing, and neurology. In addition to research reports, theoretical reviews will be considered for publication as will keynote articles and commentaries.