1. Psy1302 Psychology of Language Bilingualism I Guest Lecturer – Mathieu Le Corre

2. Why study bilingualism? Multilinguals > Monolinguals Multilinguals > Monolinguals # grow up monolingual = # grow up bilingual # grow up monolingual = # grow up bilingual More children educated in 2nd or 3rd language than in 1st More children educated in 2nd or 3rd language than in 1st Multilingual countries Multilingual countries –US: min 14.3 million spanish/english bilinguals –Eritrea: educated in Tigrigna, Arabic, English –India: 15 official languages, 1,650 spoken –New Guinea: 870 languages, typical person speaks 3 languages

3. Why study bilingualism? Test limits of human cognition & language faculty Test limits of human cognition & language faculty –Is language faculty “monolingual” or “multilingual”? –Does learning a second language cause developmental delays?

4. Bilingual first language acquisition Mish-mash theory: Mish-mash theory: –Unitary LAD initially treats two languages as single language and mashes them up. Differentiate later. Differentiation theory: Differentiation theory: –We are all born multilingual! Distinguish languages from the start and keep them separate.

5. Early evidence for unitary: “go the bébite…” Code-mixing: Code-mixing: –Combine lexical items from two input languages “The free mixing of English and German in many of her sentences was a conspicuous feature of her speech. But the very fact that she mixed lexical items proves that there was no real bilingualism. Words from the two languages did not belong to two different speech systems but to one…” “The free mixing of English and German in many of her sentences was a conspicuous feature of her speech. But the very fact that she mixed lexical items proves that there was no real bilingualism. Words from the two languages did not belong to two different speech systems but to one…” –Léopold concerning his daughter Hildegarde (1939-1949)

6. Stage theory: Volterra & Taeschner (1978) Theory also motivated (in part) by code- mixing Theory also motivated (in part) by code- mixing First stage: one monolingual lexical system First stage: one monolingual lexical system Second stage: two lexicons, one syntactic system Second stage: two lexicons, one syntactic system Third stage: differentiated lexicon & syntax Third stage: differentiated lexicon & syntax

7. Logical problems for mish-mash theory Uncontroversial: adult bilinguals distinguish their two languages Uncontroversial: adult bilinguals distinguish their two languages How do you ever differentiate two languages out of one system??? How do you ever differentiate two languages out of one system??? Code-mixing: adults do it too! Are they confused? Code-mixing: adults do it too! Are they confused?

8. Testing mish-mash further Phonology: babbling Phonology: babbling Lexical/semantic development Lexical/semantic development –Word segmentation –Mutual exclusivity/contrast –Rate of bilingual lexical development Bilingual grammar development Bilingual grammar development Pragmatic development Pragmatic development –Sensitive to language of interlocutor?

9. Do bilingual babies babble bilingually? Supra-segmental features (rhythm, stress- timing) of babbling: Supra-segmental features (rhythm, stress- timing) of babbling: –English and French have different supra- segmental features e.g. English: KINGdom (first syllable longer, louder, higher pitched) e.g. English: KINGdom (first syllable longer, louder, higher pitched) e.g French: surprise (syllables same pitch and loudness but last syllable longer) e.g French: surprise (syllables same pitch and loudness but last syllable longer) Do French/English babies distinguish these supra-segmental patterns? (Maneva & Genesee, 2002) Do French/English babies distinguish these supra-segmental patterns? (Maneva & Genesee, 2002) –YES!! Babbling with French father: shows phonological features of French Babbling with French father: shows phonological features of French Babbling with English mother: shows phonological features of French Babbling with English mother: shows phonological features of French

10. French/English word segmentation (Polka & Sundara, 2003) French & English have distinct supra- segmental patterns. Do bilingual babies mash ‘em up? French & English have distinct supra- segmental patterns. Do bilingual babies mash ‘em up? 9 French/English 8-month olds 9 French/English 8-month olds Use Juscyck Headturn Preference paradigm Use Juscyck Headturn Preference paradigm –Familiarize to bisyllabic word (e.g. kingdom or beret) –Test passages In French for French fam., in English for English fam. In French for French fam., in English for English fam. With familiarized word (beret or kingdom) With familiarized word (beret or kingdom) Without familiarized word (devis or hamlet) Without familiarized word (devis or hamlet) –Test whether headturn times are different

11. Bilingual babies are not confused!

12. Mutual exclusivity: a strong test of mish-mash Mutual Exclusivity/principle of contrast Mutual Exclusivity/principle of contrast –Essence: no two words have the same meaning What should happen if mish-mash? What should happen if mish-mash? –No translation equivalents!

13. 1-year old bilinguals restrict Mutual Exclusivity to each language! From Petitto, 2001

14. Is bilingual lexical development slower than monolingual? Standardized tests of vocab in 1 language (MCDI): bilingual infants & children score lower than monolinguals Standardized tests of vocab in 1 language (MCDI): bilingual infants & children score lower than monolinguals The poor things are delayed! The poor things are delayed! Conceptual vocabulary (CV): Conceptual vocabulary (CV): –combined vocabulary in both languages minus translation equivalents –Bilingual CV = monolingual CV (Pearson et al, 1993)

15. First word Two-word 1st 50 words Early stages: bilinguals = monolinguals Petitto et al, 2001 MonolingualsBilinguals

16. Syntax How can we tell whether children have distinct grammars or just a mish- mash? How can we tell whether children have distinct grammars or just a mish- mash? How early do we want to look? How early do we want to look? –Two-word combinations

17. Syntax How can we tell whether children have two distinct grammars or just a mish-mash? How can we tell whether children have two distinct grammars or just a mish-mash? – Look at lexically unilingual utterances (De Houwer, 2005) Contrasting structures: Contrasting structures: –French vs. English: Negation –“I do NOT like peas” & “J’aime PAS les pois” –Diff: keep negation syntax separate –MM: mix-up systems “I like NOT peas” & “Je PAS aime les pois” “I like NOT peas” & “Je PAS aime les pois” Same structure: emerge at same or different time? Same structure: emerge at same or different time? –E.g. conjugated (finite) vs. infinitive (non-finite) How early do we want to look? How early do we want to look? –Syntax emerges as soon as babies begin to combine words –So, want two-word stage

18. Review of 15+ longitudinal studies (De Houwer, 2005) 29 children, ages 1 to 6 29 children, ages 1 to 6 One parent, one language One parent, one language Spanish/Basque, French/Swedish, French/English Latvian/English, Japanese/Engiish, Italian/English… Spanish/Basque, French/Swedish, French/English Latvian/English, Japanese/Engiish, Italian/English… Multiple aspects of syntax studied Multiple aspects of syntax studied –Gender, pronouns, verb morphology, negation, word order… ALL children keep syntactic systems separate for all dimensions studied ALL children keep syntactic systems separate for all dimensions studied –E.g French/English don’t mix up negation syntax (Paradis & Genesee, 1996)

19. A caveat: similar surface structures interfere (not covered in class, this is just for enrichment) German & English word order (Döpke, 2000) German & English word order (Döpke, 2000) Main clauses: both S(ubject) V(erb) O(bject) Main clauses: both S(ubject) V(erb) O(bject) –The dog belongs to me –Der Hund gehört mir Relative: English is -VO German is -OV Relative: English is -VO German is -OV –The dog which is looking for the bone belongs to me –Der Hund der nach dem Knochen sucht, gehört mir The dog [that bone looking] belongs to me The dog [that bone looking] belongs to me German/English bilingual children overgeneralize SVO to relatives in German German/English bilingual children overgeneralize SVO to relatives in German

20. Bilingual first language acquisition (review) Mish-mash theory: Mish-mash theory: –Unitary LAD initially treats two languages as single language and mashes them up. Differentiate later. Differentiation theory: Differentiation theory: –We are all born multilingual! Distinguish languages from the start and keep them separate.

21. Testing mish-mash further Phonology: babbling Phonology: babbling Lexical/semantic development Lexical/semantic development –Word segmentation –Mutual exclusivity/contrast –Rate of bilingual lexical development Bilingual grammar development Bilingual grammar development Pragmatic development Pragmatic development –Sensitive to language of interlocutor?

22. Bimodal 2 year-olds keep grammars separate in real time! Take children who speak French & sign in Langue des Signes Québécoise Take children who speak French & sign in Langue des Signes Québécoise Look at times when sign & speak at same time. What happens? Look at times when sign & speak at same time. What happens? Simultaneous speak/sign have distinct word order! Simultaneous speak/sign have distinct word order! Spoken My dog My friend Cow small cow Signed dog my Friend my Small cow cow Petitto et al., 2001

23. Mish-mash is wrong at all levels! Phonology: babbling Phonology: babbling Lexical/semantic development Lexical/semantic development –Word segmentation –Mutual exclusivity/contrast –Rate of bilingual lexical development Bilingual grammar development Bilingual grammar development

24. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) Amount of activity of a brain area is correlated with relative amount of blood flowing to it (the hemodynamic response) Amount of activity of a brain area is correlated with relative amount of blood flowing to it (the hemodynamic response) fMRI tracks blood flow in the brain over time fMRI tracks blood flow in the brain over time Example: Syntax vs. lexical access: same brain area? Example: Syntax vs. lexical access: same brain area? –Image syntax task (e.g. passivization) –Image lexical task (e.g. synonym generation) –Syntax - lexical = areas specific to syntax –Lexical - syntax = areas specfic to lexical PAY ATTENTION TO SUBTRACTED TASK! PAY ATTENTION TO SUBTRACTED TASK!

25. The scanner limits responses that can be recorded

26. Sentence processing: English vs. Mandarin (Chee et al., 1999) Subjects Subjects –5 English/Mandarin bilinguals (18-22 years old) –Exposed to both languages before age 6 –Fluent in both languages

27. Subjects are balanced bilinguals

28. English: YellowMandarin: BlueOverlap: Green Left side of brain is on right side of image English activation = E sentence judgment - tamil reading Mandarin activation = M sentence judgment - tamil reading Areas activated: Broca’s and surrounding tissue (frontal brain) Wernicke’s and surrounding tissue (back of brain), supplementary motor area (dorsal part of frontal brain)

29. Word meaning with (balanced) Spanish/English Bilinguals (Illes et al., 1999)

30. Spanish-English bilinguals Concrete/abstract judgments Concrete/abstract judgments Lowercase/UPPERCASE judgments Lowercase/UPPERCASE judgments –e.g. ADVICE, potato, soul, FROG… –All nouns; same in English & Spanish Predictions? Predictions? –Semantic - Case for each language? –Semantic Spanish - Semantic English?

31. Left side of brain is on left side of image L1 is activation for L1 semantic -L1 case; L2 is activation for L2 semantic - L2 case; L2 - L1 is activation For L1 semantic - L2 semantic Activations Broca’s: 6 subjects Wernicke’s: 4 subjects Supplementary motor Area: 4 subjects No effect of language

32. Why the left frontal cortex? Phonology? Phonology? –Abstract/concrete engages phonological processing –BUT semantic (abstract/concrete) vs. phonological(e.g. rhyme generation) still activates LIPC Anterior LIPC: semantic Anterior LIPC: semantic Posterior LIPC: phonological Posterior LIPC: phonological Multiple other studies obtained same result Multiple other studies obtained same result

33. Word completion with early & late Chinese/English bilinguals (Chee et al., 1999) Early bilinguals (n = 15) Early bilinguals (n = 15) –Exposed to speech and writing before age 6 Late Bilinguals Late Bilinguals –L1 Mandarin –L2 English, exposure after 12

34. Task: complete partial visually- presented word either at the end (exp 1) or at the beginning (exp 2) Subtracted task: looking at a cross in the middle of the screen (fixation). Activations (from front to back) Broca’s area & surrounding tissue Supplementary motor area Wernicke’s area & surrouding tissue Occipital/parietal (way at the back of the brain -- an area associated with reading) Left of the brain is on right of images

35. No difference between English & Mandarin No difference between English & Mandarin No difference between Early and Late! No difference between Early and Late!

36. Why no effect of age of exposure? Think about “feral” children…. Think about “feral” children…. What could they learn after critical period? What could they learn after critical period? What aspect of language did task used with early/late test? What aspect of language did task used with early/late test? Right, it tested lexical processing which is intact in “feral” children Right, it tested lexical processing which is intact in “feral” children So may not have tested right part of language; e.g. phonology or morphosyntax So may not have tested right part of language; e.g. phonology or morphosyntax

37. A conflict between acquisition and brain imaging? Acquisition data support differentiated language faculty at all levels of language Acquisition data support differentiated language faculty at all levels of language Brain Imaging: Engage same regions for L1 and L2 regardless of task or age of exposure! Brain Imaging: Engage same regions for L1 and L2 regardless of task or age of exposure! How can these results be reconciled? How can these results be reconciled? –Macro vs. Micro? I.e. fMRI not precise enough? –Electrophysio: disrupt naming in-vivo Some stimulation sites disrupt each language separately Some stimulation sites disrupt each language separately