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
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 know
patterns 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 respond
differently 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 speaking
English, but no one has tested these feelings
systematically so far
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