Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick

_____________________________________

Psycholinguistics

Universität des SaarlandesDept. 4.3: English Linguistics

SS 2009

6.6 Formulaic speech

Formulaic speech also violates normal acquisition

order

but formulas play a special role in L2 acquisition

because they represent structures beyond

current competence

routines like be careful, let's play and you knowpatterns like that's ___ and Do you want____?

affect L2 acquisition positively

• perhaps because they facilitate interaction• perhaps because they develop into syntax

Formulaic speech remains unanalyzed initially

routines & formulas learned top-down versus bottom-up

may reflect different overall style of acquisition

but in later acquisition, formulas and idioms create extra problems, because they require memorization item by item

7. Bilingualism

individual bilingualism versus societal bilingualism

Compare: bilingualism versus diglossia (Ferguson)

balanced versus unbalanced bilingualism

dominant, usually first, native language

versus

weaker, second or foreign language (second or foreign language for special purpose)

7.1 Becoming bilingual

• childhood acquisition (during critical period)

• later acquisition (after critical period)

• as second language in second language culture

• as foreign language in first language culture

7.2 Advantages and disadvantages of bilingualism

obviously bilingualism is socially advantageous

nobody questions the value of adults learning foreign language, though kids learn languages more easily

but psychologists question effects of childhood acquisition of bilingualism

some tests show that acquiring two languages• slows progress in both• slows intellectual development generally

test group: lower class immigrant children where the home language

enjoyed no prestige

other tests show that acquiring two languages• has no effect on progress in either• can improve linguistic creativity• correlates with higher intelligence

test group: upper middle class children self-selected for exposure to a

second language

• all tests agree that child bilingualism increases linguistic flexibility and creativity in problem solving

• creativity measures:– how many uses child can name for everyday

objects like rubber bands and tin cans– how many things a child can list corresponding

to an abstract design,

e.g. snake and swan for a wavy line

• bilingual kids recognize arbitrariness in language earlier

asked whether can or hat is more like cap– bilingual kids age 4-9 more likely to say hat– monolingual kids more likely to say can

7.3 Do bilinguals have split personalities?

if each language comes with a whole set of cultural

prototypes and values, then switching languages

should cause a personality switch as well

consider e.g. a Canadian who speaks English only in

the insurance company where she works and French

with family and friends and everyone in the village

where she lives

French-English bilinguals in the US responded to

picture sequences with longer stories in French than

in English, but also with different themes for the

same pictures, e.g.

• stress and anxiety in French story• hard work and achievement in English story

In sentence completion tests, bilinguals also responddifferently in their two languages. Responses for Japanese-English bilinguals in US e.g. were:

When my wishes conflict with my family's . . .it is a time of great unhappiness (Japanese)I do what I want (English)

Bilinguals report feeling e.g. more gregarious speaking French and more reserved speakingEnglish, but no one has tested these feelingssystematically so far

A. Coordinate: L1 and L2 acquired

in separate contexts– each system is complete in

itself– person functions as

monolingual in both communities

7.4 Two languages in one brain7.4.1 Types of bilinguals

Weinreich (1953) distinguished three kinds of bilingualism

B. Compound: L1 and L2 acquired in same context

• the two systems are merged• person doesn't function as monolingual in either community• person may experience interference from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1

C. Subordinate: L2 acquired based on L1

– only one system

– person functions as monolingual only in L1

– person experiences interference only from

L1 to L2

Notice that Weinreich’s typology works only at the lexical level, but bilinguals may experience interference at all levels from phonetics up to semantics.

7.4.2 Bilingual meaning systems

According to Macnamara (1970): • subordinate bilinguals function appropriately in L1, but inappropriately L2

• compound bilinguals function inappropriately in both languages• though coordinate bilinguals function appropriately in L1 & L2 they must experience confusion in their internal thought

But this assumes that word meaning and natural language semantics correspond directly to mental concepts.

By contrast, Paradis (1979, 1985) argues that both language systems are connected to a conceptual-experiential level of cognition

In fact, the situation is probably a mixture of these two positions:

• WATs and other tests show concrete concepts like tree and table seem to be shared, as in ‘compound’ diagram B above• but abstract concepts like freedom and justice are language-specific, as in ‘coordinate’ diagram A above

words identical in meaning and similar in form seem to share a single ‘lexical entry’

die Karotte carrot la carottedie Adresse address l'address

but the systematic semantics of the individual languages may still differ, thus German has rough synonyms

Karotte Mohrrübe Adresse Anschrift

probably semantic systems overlap with some areas shared and others distinct, e.g.

English ball spheric, bouncy, for playFrench balle spheric, bouncy, for play, small

given French ballon for larger, inflatable spheres, while these features are irrelevant for English ball

7.4.3 Bilingual phonology and syntax

Extended system hypothesis:

phonemes of L2 are processed as allophones of

L1 phonemes

Dual system hypothesis:

separate phonemic systems for L1 & L2

Tripartite system hypothesis:

shared phonemes in one system with separate

phonemes in separate systems

Stop consonants p t k, b d g could be shared in bilingual German-English system

but English fricatives in then and thin, and German fricatives in ich and ach must occur in separate systems

Similarly:• syntactic structures of L2 could be processed in

accordance with L1 syntax• L1 & L2 could have separate syntactic systems

• shared structures could be processed the same while separate structures would require separate processing

e.g. German & English NPs could be processed

similarly with special processing for German

preposed participles like:

das von der Kandidatin gewählte Thema

7.4.4 Language processing in the bilingual brain

Depending how they're acquired, L1 & L2 may even

be lateralized differently in brain:

• L2 lateralized in right hemisphere

• L2 less lateralized than L1

• L1 & L2 both less lateralized than in monolinguals

evidence from aphasia indicates that languages are

separately organized in brain, but not necessary

lateralized separately

As Paradis (1979, 1985) shows, bilinguals comes in many types;

Bilinguals may differ with regard to:• manner of acquisition (formal, informal)• mode of acquisition (oral, written)• method of acquisition

(deductive, inductive, analytic, global)• age of acquisition (during or after critical period)• stage of acquisition• degree of proficiency

• frequency and modes of use• language-specific features of L1 & L2 • sharing features and rules at various levels

on every linguistic level, structures might be shared or separate

e.g. if L1 speaker produces L2 perfectly, except for phonetics, i.e. has lots of interference from L1 to L2

at the level of phonetics, we could model thesituation as follows:

L1 L2

conceptual level single system

semantics x -- y

syntax x -- y

morphology x -- y

lexis x -- y

phonology x -- y

and if L1 speaker produces phonetically correct L2, but makes lots of interference errors in grammar and word choice, we could model the situation as follows:

L1 L2

conceptual level single systemsemantics x -- ysyntax x -- y morphology x -- y lexis x -- y phonology x -- y

Of course, some languages may naturally sharestructures at certain levels:

English-German bilinguals probably have a single set of stop consonants for both languages, but German speakers need to add the fricatives in then and thin, and English speakers need to add the fricatives in ich and ach and so on

In the simplest model, the concepts of experience run through a set of pipes and come out as either L1 or L2

(in the model Spanish and English)

The next model ignores the concepts and begins with separate tanks for the words of L1 & L2; again pipes run down, and one language spills out.

(This second model corresponds to Weinreich’s “coordinate bilingual”)

In third model, the concepts of experience run through pipes representing L1 & L2, they are assigned appropriate words from either L1 or L2, and they flow into another set of pipes, representing the grammar and phonology, and finally flow out as either L1 or L2.

But, as in Weinreich, there’s no way in these models to account for interference

Since there's interference between the systems, some pipes may be playing a role in both L1 & L2 systems, and the pipes must be leaky; since we can code-switch and translate, there must be leakage in both directions

It’s probably necessary to complicate the third model

The tanks of words from L1 or L2, need valves to turn them on or shut them off, representing the decision to

speak either L1 or L2 and block out the other

As we saw above, the words must flow into separate sets of pipes, representing the grammar, morphology

and phonology of either L1 or L2 as well; but some

pipes serve both L1 & L2 systems to some extent, to account for interference

At all levels, we must allow leakage to explain how

we can code-switch from L1 to L2

also possible:

comprehension is a single system for L1 & L2,

while production of L1 & L2 remains separate, because:

• comprehension precedes production in acquisition • comprehension more advanced than production at

all stages • though we can choose not to speak L1 or L2,

we can't choose not to comprehend • production is lost before comprehension in aphasia • comprehension returns before production in aphasia

again according to Paradis, we can envision: • single coherent underlying conceptual system• two cognitively separate systems - with some

shared areas in semantics, syntax, phonology

one system is suppressed due to context, frequencyof contact etcbut word/phrase from suppressed system may intrude, especially during word searchthere may be differences in processing due to acquisition history, strategies etc