Transcript Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick

Lecture: Psycholinguistics
Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick
_____________________________________
Psycholinguistics
Universität des Saarlandes
Dept. 4.3: English Linguistics
SS 2009
7.4 Two languages in one brain
7.4.1 Types of bilinguals
Weinreich (1953) distinguished three kinds of
bilingualism
A. Coordinate: L1 and L2 acquired
in separate contexts
– each system is complete in
itself
– person functions as
monolingual in both
communities
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 conceptualexperiential 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
die Adresse
carrot
address
la carotte
l'address
but the systematic semantics of the individual
languages may still differ, thus German has rough
synonyms
Karotte
Adresse
Mohrrübe
Anschrift
probably semantic systems overlap with some
areas shared and others distinct, e.g.
English ball spheric, bouncy, for play
French 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 the
situation as follows:
L1
conceptual level
semantics
syntax
morphology
lexis
phonology
L2
single system
x
-y
x
-y
x
-y
x
-y
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
conceptual level
semantics
syntax
morphology
lexis
phonology
L2
single system
x
-y
x -- y
x
-y
x -- y
x
-y
Of course, some languages may naturally share
structures 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, frequency
of contact etc
but word/phrase from suppressed system may intrude,
especially during word search
there may be differences in processing due to
acquisition history, strategies etc
8. Language comprehension
 means understanding what we hear and read
comprehension as active search for coherence and
sense based on expectations arising from context,
not a passive item-by-item recording and analysis of
words in a linear sequence.
meaning and real-world expectations play a more
important role than grammar
top-down versus bottom-up processing
Until the age of four, kids interpret a-d the same way;
even adults require longer to respond to c, d:
a. The cat chased the mouse.
b. The mouse was chased by the cat.
c. The mouse chased the cat.
d. The cat was chased by the mouse.
Asked to paraphrase e-g in their own words, subjects
‘normalized’ the sentences 60% of the time:
e. John dressed and had a bath.
f. John finished and wrote the article on the
weekend.
g. Don't print that or I won't sue you.
Asked if they saw any difference between g and their
‘incorrect’ paraphrase h, 53% still said no
h. If you print that, I'll sue you.
 clearly, the ‘Reality Principle’ guides our
comprehension of linguistic structures
8.1 Comprehension of sounds
How can we identify sounds and words when
sounds vary?
How to wreck a nice beach =
How to recognize speech
Notice positional variants
Consider necessity of top-down interpretation
Phoneme restoration effect
a. It was found that the -eel was on the axle.
 wheel
b. It was found that the -eel was on the shoe.
 heel
c. It was found that the -eel was on the orange.
 peel
d. It was found that the -eel was on the table.
 meal
We hear progressively different allophones of a single
phoneme as the same:
spread p in peel versus puckered p in pool versus
unaspirated p in speed or spool
but we hear separate phonemes as distinct although
they also occupy points along a single continuum
pie and buy differ only in the initial consonant
we attend only to difference in
Voicing Onset Time (VOT)
VOT for pie about 50 milliseconds later than for buy
even sounds halfway between p and b in VOT are
heard as one or the other rather than as a
combination of the two
 this categorial perception of sounds is a distinctly
human trait
sometimes cited as evidence of innate language ability
but differences between fricatives like fa tha sa sha
are perceived continuously on basis of aperiodic
noise
8.2 Comprehension of words
Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP):
separate, simultaneous and parallel processes work
to identify words
by pronunciation:to recognize homophones
leadN and ledV pst
by spelling:
to recognize homographs
windN and windV
by grammar:
to recognize smell as noun or verb
while hear can only function as verb
by semantics:
synonyms like little and small
antonyms like little and big
hyponyms like car versus vehicle etc
PDP can link word meanings to perceptual and
functional paradigms (how a thing looks, sounds etc,
what it's used for)
consider Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomena
you're trying to recall the word for the belief that life's
events are preordained by a deity
you remember that the word begins with p, then that
word begins with pre-, and that it ends with -tion
Bathtub Effect: recall is best for beginnings and
ends of words, like the head and feet of a person
which are visible though the middle remains
submerged in the tub
you recall associated words like:
predilection
pretension
Presbyterian
preordained
you finally come up with: predestination
Spreading activation networks: as the search
progresses, more words and concepts are accessed
related in various ways,
including schematic knowledge
e.g. the association of Presbyterian
and predestination via 'religion‘
Both comprehension and production of both speech
and writing require accessing the mental lexicon.
Garman (1990: 249) diagrams input-output relations
as following: