1. ARE BILINGUALS LIKE TWO MONOLINGUALS IN ONE PERSON? EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH IN SENTENCE PROCESSING Eva M. Fernández eva_fernandez@qc.edu Queens College & Graduate Center ▪ CUNY CUNY Academy ▪ Junior Faculty Series November 25 ▪ Rosenthal Library, Room 230 ▪ Queens College

2. COLLABORATION & SUPPORT Dianne Bradley & Janet Fodor CUNY Graduate Center Elaine Klein Queens College & Graduate Center, CUNY Javier Sainz & Lola Oria-Merino Universidad Complutense de Madrid RISLUS: Research Institute for the Study of Language in an Urban Society CUNY Graduate Center

3. BILINGUAL PROCESSING  How do bilinguals process their two languages?  using strategies similar to those of monolinguals?  with similar timing to that of monolinguals?  with similar accuracy when the task involves it?  with both written and acoustic stimuli? ¿ Bilingual (Lx, Ly) = Monolingual (Lx) + Monolingual (Ly) ?

4. A BILINGUAL IS…  a person who can communicate efficiently in two codes, Lx & Ly  a person who has:  underlying competence in Lx and Ly  underlying differentiation of Lx and Ly Lx Ly  Who did you say that _ left? Who did you say _ left? ¿Quién dijiste que _ se marchó?  ¿Quién dijiste _ se marchó?

5. TWO COMPONENTS OR ONE? TWO GRAMMARS  evidence: grammaticality judgments that differ between Lx & Ly  requirement: grammaticality difference  rule in Lx  rule in Ly TWO PROCESSORS  evidence: processing preferences that differ between Lx & Ly  requirement: processing difference  strategy in Lx  strategy in Ly

6. MONOLINGUAL PERFORMANCE Mary saw a gift for a boy … WORDS SENTENCES (parser) PROPOSITIONS Lx

7. MONOLINGUAL PERFORMANCE SENTENCES (parser Lx) LxLy SENTENCES (parser Ly) IF CROSS-LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES: Mary saw a gift for a boy … María vio un regalo para un niño …

8. BILINGUAL PERFORMANCE SENTENCES (parser Lx) LxLy SENTENCES (parser Ly) TWO PARSERS? STRATEGIES DEPEND ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE STIMULUS María vio un regalo para un niño … Mary saw a gift for a boy …

9. BILINGUAL PERFORMANCE LxLy OR ONE? SENTENCES (parser Lx) SENTENCES (parser Ly) UNIFORM STRATEGIES, WITH STIMULUS IN EITHER LANGUAGE; type of strategy depends on individual speaker variables María vio un regalo para un niño … Mary saw a gift for a boy …

10. PARSING PRINCIPLES MINIMAL ATTACHMENT (“Build the simplest structure”) LATE CLOSURE / RECENCY PREFERENCE (“Attach locally”)

11. MINIMAL ATTACHMENT  Mary saw…  Mary saw a gift for a boy… S VP V saw NP a gift for a boy NP Mary  Mary saw a gift for a boy would be a good idea. VP would be a good idea S  building complex structure = processing cost

12. LATE CLOSURE, in English  Mary saw a gift for a boy… NP PP P for NP a boy NP a gift  Mary saw a gift for a boy in a box. PP in a box attaching non-locally = processing cost

13. LATE CLOSURE in English… y en español  María vio un regalo para un niño… NP PP P para NP un niño NP un regalo  María vio un regalo para un niño en una caja. PP en una caja attaching non-locally = processing cost

14. LATE CLOSURE, RECENCY PREFERENCE ATTACH LOCALLY ... a gift to a boy in a box  in many languages  with many constructions  no interesting predictions for bilinguals: bilinguals and monolinguals will all prefer local attachments EXCEPTION: N1 of N2 RC

15. … N1 of N2 RC  the relative clause (RC) attachment ambiguity  structurally ambiguous: RC could attach to N1 or N2 An assassin shot the maid of the actress … who was on the balcony. Un asesino disparó a la criada de la actriz … que estaba en el balcón. EN: SP: N1N2 N1N2

16. QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES An assassin shot the maid of the actress who was on the balcony. Who was on the balcony?the maidthe actress low attachment (N2) preference high attachment (N1) preference AMBIGUOUS TARGETS:

17. QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES Mary lent her favorite sweater to her best friend Susanne. Who borrowed a sweater?MarySusanne An assassin shot the maid of the actress who was on the balcony. Who was on the balcony?the maidthe actress AMBIGUOUS TARGETS: UNAMBIGUOUS FILLERS:

18. SPANISH [high] ≠ ENGLISH [low] LOW ATTACHMENT  ENGLISH, et a few al.  Arabic  Norwegian  Romanian  Swedish  ?? Un asesino disparó a la criada de la actriz que estaba en el balcón. An assassin shot the maid of the actress who was on the balcony. MONOLINGUALS… HIGH ATTACHMENT  SPANISH, et al.  Afrikaans, Dutch  Brazilian Portuguese  Bulgarian, Russian  Croatian  French  German  Greek  ??

19. Un asesino disparó a la criada de la actriz que...HIGH in SP An assassin shot the maid of the actress who…LOW in EN BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING BILINGUALS… HIGH ATTACHMENT LOW ATTACHMENT Babble babble in either language N1 P N2 RC…HIGH if SDOM Babble babble in either language N1 P N2 RC…LOW if EDOM LANGUAGE DEPENDENT PROCESSING: depending on the language of the stimulus? LANGUAGE INDEPENDENT PROCESSING: same strategies, no matter the language; type of strategy based on individual speaker variables? HIGH ATTACHMENT in Spanish LOW ATTACHMENT in English HIGH ATTACHMENT if Spanish-dominant LOW ATTACHMENT if English-dominant

20. CROSS-LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES:  Ultimate preferences are the result of initial attachments  Spanish parser  English parser  Ultimate preferences are the result of post-syntactic processing  Spanish parser = English parser  departure from (early) low attachment due to semantics (meaning), pragmatics (use), prosody (segmentation)… WHY?

21. MONOLINGUAL PERFORMANCE … la criada de la actriz que … SENTENCES (parser Lx) POST-SYNTAX PROCESSING (pragmatics, prosody? Lx) … the maid of the actress that … SENTENCES (parser Ly) POST-SYNTAX PROCESSING (pragmatics, prosody? Ly) (universal parser) the maid (N1) was on the balcony!the actress (N2) was on the balcony!

22. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN  SUBJECTS  monolingual & bilingual  MATERIALS  English & Spanish  TASKS  speeded “on-line” task (early processing) & unspeeded “off-line” task (later processing)

23. SUBJECTS Monolingual Speakers of… American English (USENG) Castillian Spanish (CSPA) N = 64 Bilingual Speakers (from NYC)… Dominant in English (EDOM) Dominant in Spanish (SDOM) N = 40 Self-Rated Proficiency difference Eng – Spa, listening/speaking reading/writing – 0.75 – 1.15 + 0.72 + 0.77

24. The journalist interviewed the coach of the gymnast… … the coach of the gymnasts that was … … the coaches of the gymnast that was … … the coach of the gymnast that was … MATERIALS  Ambiguous, questionnaire:  Disambiguated, self-paced reading:  Matrix with N of/de N in post-verbal position:

25.  Ambiguous, questionnaire:  Disambiguated, self-paced reading:  Matrix with N of/de N in post-verbal position: El periodista entrevistó al entrenador del gimnasta… … el entrenador de los gimnastas que estaba... … los entrenadores del gimnasta que estaba … … el entrenador del gimnasta que estaba … MATERIALS

26. SELF-PACED READING TASK EARLY PROCESSING  Read DISAMBIGUATED sentences  presented in 2 frames  followed by comprehension questions  INDIRECT measure of preferences  which is faster, a forced low or a forced high attachment? … the coaches of the gymnast / that was … … the coach of the gymnasts / that was … The journalist interviewed the coach of the gymnaststhat was signing autographs during the competition. forced high forced low Was the coach signing autographs during the competition?

27. QUESTIONNAIRE TASK LATER PROCESSING  Read AMBIGUOUS sentences  typed on one line  followed by question about the attachment  DIRECT measure of preferences  which is chosen more frequently, N2 or N1? The journalist interviewed the coach of the gymnast that was sick. Who was sick? the coach the gymnast The dog bit the mailman and barked at the cat. Who bit the mailman? the dog the cat

28. … the coach of the gymnasts ON-LINE READING TIMES: MONOLINGUALS that was signing autographs during the competition. FRAME 2FRAME 1 The journalist interviewed the coaches of the gymnast … the coaches of the gymnast low attachment preference: low faster high attachment preference: high faster

29. ON-LINE READING TIMES: MONOLINGUALS main effect of Site: F1 (1,72) = 7.77, p <.01 F2 (1,20) = 6.15, p <.05 Language  Site n/s

30. OFF-LINE PREFERENCES: MONOLINGUALS … the coach of the gymnast that was signing autographs… Who was signing autographs? the coach the gymnast the coachthe gymnast low attachment preference high attachment preference

31. OFF-LINE PREFERENCES: MONOLINGUALS main effect of Language: F1 (1,44) = 5.48, p <.025 F2 (1,10) = 56.05, p <.001

32. ON-LINE READING TIMES: BILINGUALS main effect of Site n/s: F1, F2 < 1 Site  Language n/s Site  Dominance n/s Site  Dominance  Language n/s MONOLINGUALS

33. ON-LINE READING TIMES: MONOLINGUALS & BILINGUALS

34. SUBJECTS Monolingual Speakers of… American English (USENG) Castillian Spanish (CSPA) N = 64 Bilingual Speakers (from NYC)… Dominant in English (EDOM) Dominant in Spanish (SDOM) N = 40 Self-Rated Proficiency difference Eng – Spa, listening/speaking reading/writing – 0.75 – 1.15 + 0.72 + 0.77

35. OFF-LINE PREFERENCES: BILINGUALS MONOLINGUALS Dominance  Language n/s main effect of Dominance: F1 (1,40) = 9.04, p <.005 F2 (1,20) = 59.36, p <.001

36.  EARLY PROCESSING  Low attachment in English and Spanish monolinguals  Bilinguals slower than monolinguals  No attachment preferences in English/Spanish bilinguals  LATER PROCESSING  Differences in monolingual English (low) and Spanish (high)  Language independent processing in bilinguals  Strategies associated with those of monolinguals in the bilinguals’ dominant language BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING: 1 + 1 = 1  Do bilinguals process input as if they were monolinguals of each of their languages? NO

37. BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING BILINGUALS… HIGH ATTACHMENT LOW ATTACHMENT Babble babble in either language N1 P N2 RC…HIGH if SDOM Babble babble in either language N1 P N2 RC…LOW if EDOM LANGUAGE DEPENDENT PROCESSING: depending on the language of the stimulus? X X LANGUAGE INDEPENDENT PROCESSING: same strategies, no matter the language; type of strategy based on language dominance HIGH ATTACHMENT if Spanish-dominant LOW ATTACHMENT if English-dominant

38. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONVERGING EVIDENCE?  Brazilian Portuguese & English bilinguals  off-line questionnaire  BP L1 or EN L1  BP L1 bilinguals: high in both languages  EN L1 bilinguals: low in both languages (Maia & Maia, 2001)

39. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONVERGING EVIDENCE?  Spanish & English bilinguals  off-line questionnaire  early acquirers of Lx & Ly; late acquirers of EN L2 or SP L2  early acquirers: no preference  late acquirers: EN L2: low in EN, high in SP SP L2: low in EN & SP (Dussias, 2001)

40. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONVERGING EVIDENCE?  Spanish & English bilinguals  on-line self-paced reading, materials only in SP  early acquirers of Lx & Ly; late acquirers of EN L2 or SP L2  early acquirers: no preference  late acquirers: EN L2: high in SP SP L2: trend to high in SP (Dussias, 2001)

41. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONVERGING EVIDENCE?  speakers of Greek as L2  on-line self-paced reading, materials only in GK  late acquirers of GK, L1 speakers of SP, GE, RU  all L2 learner groups: no preference (Papadopoulou, 2002)

42. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS  Relative Clause Attachment Preferences  Similarity between English and Spanish in early processing  Departure from low attachment preference in later phases of processing  Bilingual sentence processing  Evidence of language-independent strategy use  Strategies resemble those of monolingual speakers of a bilingual’s dominant language

43. REMAINING PROBLEMS  insensitive “on-line” task  did we miss the early low attachment preference in the bilinguals?  or do bilinguals not engage in structurally-based processing strategies?  a mystery, what drives cross-linguistic differences  grammar? (unlikely, given these results)  person-based variable: lexical frequencies? tuning? prosody?  circumstantial idiosyncrasies of bilinguals  corroborate with evidence from other bilingual populations  focus on language dominance: other variables?  manner and age of acquisition  frequency of language use  literacy, primary language of education  etc.

44. THANK YOU!  Please send questions and comments to: Eva Fernández eva_fernandez@qc.edu download a copy of this presentation at: http://www.qc.edu/~efernand/papers/emf_25nov02.ppt