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 L 2 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 L 2 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

A. Coordinate: L 1 and L 2 acquired in separate contexts –each system is complete in itself –person functions as monolingual in both communities 7.4 Two languages in one brain Types of bilinguals Weinreich (1953) distinguished three kinds of bilingualism

B. Compound: L 1 and L 2 acquired in same context the two systems are merged person doesn't function as monolingual in either community person may experience interference from L 1 to L 2 and from L 2 to L 1

C. Subordinate: L 2 acquired based on L 1 –only one system –person functions as monolingual only in L 1 –person experiences interference only from L 1 to L 2 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 L 1, but inappropriately L 2 compound bilinguals function inappropriately in both languages though coordinate bilinguals function appropriately in L 1 & L 2 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 carrotla carotte die Adresse addressl'address but the systematic semantics of the individual languages may still differ, thus German has rough synonyms KarotteMohrrübe AdresseAnschrift

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 L 2 are processed as allophones of L 1 phonemes Dual system hypothesis: separate phonemic systems for L 1 & L 2 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 L 2 could be processed in accordance with L 1 syntax L 1 & L 2 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, L 1 & L 2 may even be lateralized differently in brain: L 2 lateralized in right hemisphere L 2 less lateralized than L 1 L 1 & L 2 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 L 1 & L 2 sharing features and rules at various levels on every linguistic level, structures might be shared or separate e.g. if L 1 speaker produces L 2 perfectly, except for phonetics, i.e. has lots of interference from L 1 to L 2 at the level of phonetics, we could model the situation as follows:

L 1 L 2 conceptual levelsingle system semanticsx --y syntaxx--y morphologyx--y lexis x--y phonologyx --y

and if L 1 speaker produces phonetically correct L 2, but makes lots of interference errors in grammar and word choice, we could model the situation as follows: L 1 L 2 conceptual levelsingle system semanticsx --y syntaxx --y morphologyx--y lexis x --y phonologyx --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 L 1 or L 2 (in the model Spanish and English)

The next model ignores the concepts and begins with separate tanks for the words of L 1 & L 2 ; 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 L 1 & L 2, they are assigned appropriate words from either L 1 or L 2, and they flow into another set of pipes, representing the grammar and phonology, and finally flow out as either L 1 or L 2.

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 L 1 & L 2 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 L 1 or L 2, need valves to turn them on or shut them off, representing the decision to speak either L 1 or L 2 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 L 1 or L 2 as well; but some pipes serve both L 1 & L 2 systems to some extent, to account for interference At all levels, we must allow leakage to explain how we can code-switch from L 1 to L 2

also possible: comprehension is a single system for L 1 & L 2, while production of L 1 & L 2 remains separate, because: comprehension precedes production in acquisition comprehension more advanced than production at all stages though we can choose not to speak L 1 or L 2, 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