Li Wei Birkbeck College, University of London [email protected]
MULTILINGUALISM, SOCIAL COGNITION, AND CREATIVITY
Slide 2
2014 A control process model of codeswitching (with David
Green). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29,4: 499-511 2014 The
role of codeswitching in bilingual creativity and selective
attention (with Anatoliy Kharkhurin). International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2014.884211 2013 Is multilingualism linked to a
higher tolerance of ambiguity? Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition. 16.1: 231-240 (with Jean-Marc Dewaele) 2012
Multilingualism, empathy and multicompetence. International Journal
of Multilingualism 9.4: 352-366 (with Jean-Marc Dewaele)
Slide 3
LANGUAGE MODE OF THE BILINGUAL SPEECH PRODUCTION (GROSJEAN,
1998)
Slide 4
IMPLICATIONS (Some) Bilinguals can behave as if they were
monolingual by using only one of the languages they know. How do
you tell whether a person is bilingual or not? A.Ask the person
directly whether she is bilingual. B.The person introduces herself
as bilingual. C.Someone else introduces her as bilingual. D. You
hear the person speaking two or more languages with other people.
Only in D, we have evidence that the speaker is in fact
bilingual.
Slide 5
Code-Switching is therefore a defining feature of being
bilingual. Yet, CS has received relatively little attention in
cognitive psychology of bilingualism. Most of the existing work is
on differentiation/separation/deactivation. (Some) Bilinguals can
behave as if they were monolingual by using only one of the
languages they know. SOME, because there are different types of
bilinguals. For some, separation is neither a possibility nor a
need.
Slide 6
Experience - born into a multilingual family/community vs
learning additional languages later in life; living in a
multilingual environment vs OLON/OLAT environment Multilingual
reality: cf. bilinguals, few multilinguals separate languages all
the time (Clyne and others).
Slide 7
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CS 1. Its absolutely scandalistic.
(referring to a news story) 2. Can you open the light? 3. lam:a f
lik bj e (referring to a cartoon character) (Khattab 2009: 152)
(Arabic. when Flick comes, with Flick pronounced with an epenthetic
vowel, as in Arabic) 4. Girl 1:Dnde ests? (Spanish. Where are you
?) Girl 2: Upstairs. Girl 1:Dnde? (Spanish. Where ?) Girl 2:En mi
habitacin. (Spanish. In the bedroom.)
Slide 8
5. Mother: Nei sik muyt-ye a ? (Cantonese. What do you want to
eat ?) Son: (1.0) Just apples. Mother: Just /n/ just apples? Dimgai
m sik yoghurt a ? (Cantonese. Why not have some yoghurt ?) 6. There
was a guy, you know, que [that] he se mont [got up]. He started
playing with congas, you know, and se mont y empeza brincar [got up
and started to jump] and all that shit. (Winford, 2003: 105) 7.
Ngaw wei solve di problem (Cantonese. I will; that/those. I will
solve that problem.) 8.Tu peux me pick-up-er? (French: You can. Can
you pick me up ?) (Gardner-Chloros, 2009: 97)
Slide 9
9.I'm LAVing PANDELCAGEs. (Danish. Make, pancake. I'm making
pancakes.) (Petersen, 1988) 10.I have cha de/ -ed chulai ( de
Chinese case marker. I have checked.) Traditional de, simplified/
de ( de Chinese case marker) 11.She asked me, nei ha m ha-ppy la?
So I told her, ho m happy la. (Cantonese. You NEG. PART. Very PART.
Are you happy or not? Very unhappy.) 12. Sho shenme ping ! (
Mandarin. What. What shopping)
Slide 10
Different structural configurations Different social
motivations/purposes/contexts Different cognitive mechanism
(?)
Slide 11
COGNITIVE MECHANISMS OF CODESWITCHING Cognitive control
differentiation / separation / deactivation Language switching and
task switching Executive systems (cognitive advantages) Imaging
research neural networks involved in language switching Subject
selection: bilinguals vs monolinguals; early vs late bilinguals;
high proficiency bilinguals vs low proficiency bilinguals
Slide 12
COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF BILINGUALISM Cognitive advantages of
bilingualism (knowing more than one language) Non-verbal domains /
reaction time (Simon task) Metalinguistic awareness Selective
attention Creativity High-proficiency bilinguals have better
cognitive/executive control functions Ability to separate languages
(control/deactivation) is taken to be the key
Slide 13
COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF CODESWITCHING What happens to
habitual/dense Codeswitchers who simply do not separate their
languages? Poor executive control? Does CS require More or Less
control? Poor metalinguistic awareness? Grammaticality and
structural well-formedness. Poor selective attention, therefore
poor creativity?
Slide 14
THE SOCIAL COGNITION OF HABITUAL CODESWITCHERS A) Empathy B)
Tolerance of Ambiguity with Jean-Marc Dewaele
Slide 15
EMPATHY Empathy - the ability to tune into how someone else is
feeling, or what they might be thinking (Baron-Cohen &
Wheelwright, 2004, p. 193). Empathy plays a crucial role in social
interactions as it allows us to understand the intentions of
others, predict their behaviour, and experience an emotion
triggered by their emotion (p. 193). Linguists working on CS often
claim that multilinguals can collaboratively build sentences with
elements from different languages. Potential to test multilinguals
Theory of Mind. Cognitive empathy - the intellectual/imaginative
apprehension of anothers mental state Emotional empathy - an
emotional response to... emotional responses of others (Lawrence,
Shaw, Baker, Baron-Cohen, & David, 2004, p. 911). In SLA,
learners with higher Cognitive Empathy has been shown to have
better attainment, and vice versa. Instrument: Baron-Cohen and
Wheelwrights (2004) Empathy Quotient questionnaire.
Slide 16
FINDINGS A total of 2,158 multilinguals (1589 females, 457
males) completed a language use questionnaire and the
Baron-Cohen/Wheelwright EQ questionnaire, focusing on Cognitive
Empathy. Participants knowing more languages did not score higher
on cognitive empathy than those knowing fewer knowing more
languages alone does not enhance Cognitive Empathy. Participants
who use multiple languages more frequently scored significantly
higher on cognitive empathy. Participants who habitually codeswitch
between multiple language showed a stronger effect on cognitive
empathy than mere proficiency in multiple languages. Separately
Dewaele and others investigated CS and emotions.
Slide 17
TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY TA is tendency to perceive ambiguous
situations as desirable (Budner 1962: 29). TA refers to the way an
individual (or group) perceives and processes information about
ambiguous situations when they are confronted by an array of
unfamiliar, complex or incongruent cues (Furnham 1994: 403) =>
correlated with Openness (behaviour: wide interests, imaginative
& insightful, linked to activity in dorsolateral cortex;
considered primarily a cognitive trait) & Rigidity
(inflexibility, difficulty making transitions, adherence to set
patterns, linked to deficit of the executive functions (frontal
lobe). In SLA, some studies have shown that good language learners
are more tolerant of ambiguity, though it remains a controversial
issue.
Slide 18
Multilingual Use questionnaire with 18 questions related to
sociobiographical background, frequency of codeswitching and
attitudes towards CS etc. Adapted version of Hermans (2010)
Tolerance of Ambiguity questionnaire N = 2158 (1589 females, 457
males)
Slide 19
EFFECT OF MULTILINGUALISM ON TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY F =2.33, P
< 0.041ETA 2 : 0.006
Slide 20
Effect of TA on self-reported frequency of Code-switching
(ANOVAs)
Slide 21
EFFECT OF TA ON ATTITUDES TOWARD CODE-SWITCHING
Slide 22
RESULTS Participants who know more languages score high on TA.
TA not linked to proficiency TA not linked frequency of CS (!) TA
linked to attitudes towards CS - High TA less likely to view CS
negatively or to be bothered by being different!
Slide 23
CS AND SELECTIVE ATTENTION, AND CREATIVITY with Anatoliy
Kharkhurin Kharkhurin - effect of speaking several languages on an
individuals creative capacities. Individuals who know many
different languages have better/enhanced selective attention, i.e.
control and separation Selective attention is crucial to
creativity, i.e. divergent thinking Using the Stroop task,
Kharkhurin revealed that bilinguals who are better at focusing on
relevant information i.e. selective attention, tend to also
activate a larger number of possible solutions to a problem (i.e.,
generative capacity). It also revealed that bilinguals with high
language skills may utilize the inhibition mechanism of selective
attention to enhance the extraction of innovative and useful ideas
(i.e., innovative capacity) presumably by suppressing the
interference of the ideas that fail to satisfy task requirements.
Kharkhurin, 2011, made a logical though speculative conclusion that
habitual CS where multiple languages are simultaneously activated
may hinder selective attention and therefore may have negative
impact on creative performance.
Slide 24
CS AND SELECTIVE ATTENTION, AND CREATIVITY The performance of
166 multilingual college students in UAE (59 male and 107 female,
all Arabic-English bilingual with various other languages) with
different code-switching behaviors and attitudes was tested on a
battery of creativity and cognitive measures. Participants creative
abilities were assessed using the Abbreviated Torrance Test for
Adults (ATTA, Goff & Torrance, 2002). It has three paper and
pencil activities. In Activity 1, participants were asked to
suppose that they could walk on air or fly, and then to identify
the troubles that they might encounter. This activity provided
verbal fluency and originality scores. In Activity 2, participants
were presented with two abstract and incomplete figures and were
asked to draw pictures with these figures and to attempt to make
these pictures as unusual as possible. This activity provided
figural fluency, originality, and elaboration scores. In Activity
3, the participants were presented with a group of nine triangles
arranged in a 3 x 3 matrix and were asked to draw as many pictures
or objects as they could using those triangles. This activity
provided figural fluency, originality, elaboration, and flexibility
scores..
Slide 25
ATTA offers four scores of fluency, originality, elaboration,
and flexibility. Fluency measures the ability to produce quantities
of ideas, which are relevant to the task instructions. The sum of
fluency scores in all three activities provided a fluency raw
score. Originality measures the ability to produce uncommon ideas,
or ideas that are totally new or unique. The sum of originality
scores in all three activities provided an originality raw score.
Elaboration measures the ability to embellish ideas with details.
The sum of elaboration scores in Activities 2 and 3 provided an
elaboration raw score. Flexibility measures the ability to process
information or objects in different ways, given the same stimulus.
A flexibility raw score was obtained from Activity 3. The raw
scores for fluency, originality, elaboration, and flexibility
obtained in the test were subsequently transformed into scaled
norm-referenced scores by the recommended procedure (Goff &
Torrance, 2002) which took age-related norms into account.
Slide 26
Participants fluid intelligence (Gf) was assessed by a standard
Culture Fair Intelligence Test battery (CFIT, Cattell, 1973), which
uses nonverbal stimuli to assess intelligence in such a way that
the influence of verbal fluency, culture, and educational level has
the least effect possible. Selective attention was assessed by a
version of the standard Eriksen flanker task. Participants were
first presented with a fixation cross for 500 ms, which was
immediately followed by a horizontal array of five equally sized
and spaced arrows for 1700 ms. The array was 14.87 cm wide and 1.16
cm high. The stimuli were presented in black on white background
using 19 flat monitor. Participants were instructed to attend to
the central arrow and ignore the four flankers. They were to press
the left key for a left facing central arrow and the right key for
a right facing central arrow. The flanking arrows either all
pointed in the same direction as the target arrow, or they all
pointed in the opposite direction. The trials on which the flanking
arrows pointed in the same direction as the target arrow were the
congruent trials; the trials in which they pointed in the opposite
direction were the incongruent trials. Subjects received a total of
80 trials (40 congruent and 40 incongruent ones) in a random order,
requiring an equal number of left or right responses.
RESULTS The study revealed both effects: code-switching was
found to weaken an individuals selective attention, yet at the same
time, it facilitated certain creative capacities and had no overall
negative consequences for creativity. Specifically, CS for special
communication purposes was found to be detrimental for selective
attention, but not for creativity. On the other hand, CS induced by
a particular emotional state and by a lack of specific vocabulary
in a target language appeared to relate to increase in both
generative and innovative capacities.
Slide 32
Participants who code switch to achieve special communicative
effect revealed lower selective attention capacity. In these cases,
they are likely to consider several alternatives in different
languages to select a lexical entry that communicates their message
in the best possible manner. The success of this process partially
relies on the ability to keep the entries in several languages
active. Code switchers seem to be unlikely to focus on one language
and suppress the other; that is, they should be less readily
involved in interference suppression. This explains the findings
that individuals who code switch to achieve special communication
effect might be less involved in habitual interference suppression
and therefore showed poorer selective attention performance.
Slide 33
At the same time, this performance was not related to any
impairment in creative functioning. Despite the fact that CS could
be detrimental to selective attention, those individuals who code
switch to say something unusual do not suffer from limited
selective control. They may code switch to exercise their verbal
creative capacity, which compensates for the lack of selective
attention. In an attempt to convey the message with special
communication effects, they deliberately code switch to achieve an
expressive and creative performance. This idea is supported by our
finding of a clear tendency for bilinguals to code switch in order
to convey a message better and with more precision. This finding is
consistent with the arguments put forward by sociolinguists who
suggest that one of the primary motivations for CS by bilingual
speakers is to convey messages more effectively, often through
reiteration and elaboration in different languages (e.g. Gumperz,
1982). Moreover, there is an argument that it is the contrast in
language choice that is built by the act of CS rather than the
directionality of language choice (e.g. Li, 2005).
Slide 34
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SELECTIVE ATTENTION AND
CREATIVITY TESTS When we talk about the relationship between CS and
selective attention, we assume that bilinguals employ this capacity
only to suppress one language while speaking the other. This may
not be the case in the CS mode, as one still has to select elements
from different languages and mix them in order to produce
grammatical and meaningful utterances. It could be argued that
habitual code-switchers exercise more selective control when they
are engaged in CS, albeit at a much fine-grained level. This
consideration could explain the findings of no selective attention
performance differences between participants who indicated that
they code switch in a particular emotional state, to convey a
message better, and due to the lack of a word in a target language
and those who do not code switch for these reasons.
Slide 35
Definitely, the impact of CS on selective attention appears to
have no negative consequences for ones creative capacity. Different
CS conditions were found to be facilitatory for creative
functioning, including both generative and innovative capacities.
In particular, emotion-triggered and culturally-specific
concept/word-triggered CS results in higher scores in creative
capacity measure.
Slide 36
FUTURE RESEARCH CS, the defining characteristic behavior of
bilingual speakers, has not been systematically studied in
cognitive psycholinguistic research. We have tried to investigate
the consequence of codeswitching on social cognition of
multilinguals, and the relationship between CS, selective attention
and creativity, partly to counter the negative views of CS by
educators and others. Further research is required to examine other
aspects of social cognition and how CS contributes to creativity;
does CS require more or less selective attention; what cognitive
mechanisms and psychological states may have an impact on the
relationships between CS, selective attention and creativity, and
different types of codeswitching (motivations, modalities). A model
of cognitive control of CS is needed, that does not focus
exclusively on differentiation/separation/deactivation. Moreover,
individual variations need to be taken seriously and investigated
systematically in psycholinguistics studies of CS, going beyond
comparisons between monolinguals and bilingualism, recognizing the
diversity and the ecology of different types of bilingual and
multilingual language users.
Slide 37
2014 A control process model of codeswitching (with David
Green). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29,4: 499-511
DOI:10.1080/23273798.2014.882515 2014 The role of codeswitching in
bilingual creativity and selective attention (with Anatoliy
Kharkhurin). International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2014.884211 2013 Is
multilingualism linked to a higher tolerance of ambiguity?
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 16.1: 231-240 (with Jean-Marc
Dewaele) 2012 Multilingualism, empathy and multicompetence.
International Journal of Multilingualism 9.4: 352-366 (with
Jean-Marc Dewaele)
Slide 38
THANK YOU Li Wei [email protected] Birkbeck College, University
of London