Bilinguals: Two Monolinguals in One?

1. ARE BILINGUALS LIKE TWO MONOLINGUALS IN ONE PERSON? EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCHIN SENTENCE PROCESSING Eva M. Fernándezeva_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 efficientlyin two codes, Lx & Ly • a person who has: • underlying competence in Lx and Ly • underlying differentiation of Lx and Ly Lx Who did you say that _ left? Who did you say _ left? Ly ¿Quién dijiste que _ se marchó? ¿Quién dijiste _ se marchó?

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

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

7. MONOLINGUAL PERFORMANCE IF CROSS-LINGUISTICDIFFERENCES: María vio un regalo para un niño … Mary saw a giftfor a boy … SENTENCES (parser Lx) SENTENCES (parser Ly) Lx Ly

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

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

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

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

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

13. LATE CLOSURE in English… y en español PP en una caja • María vio un regalo para un niño en una caja. • María vio un regalo para un niño… NP PP NP P NP un regalo para un niño 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 N1 N2 An assassin shot the maid of the actress … EN: who was on the balcony. N1 N2 SP: Un asesino disparó a la criada de la actriz … que estaba en el balcón.

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

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

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

19. BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING BILINGUALS… Babble babble in either language N1 P N2 RC… HIGH if SDOM Babble babble in either language N1 P N2RC…LOW if EDOM Un asesino disparó a la criada de la actriz que... HIGH in SP An assassin shot the maid of the actresswho… LOW in EN HIGH ATTACHMENT HIGH ATTACHMENT in Spanish HIGH ATTACHMENT if Spanish-dominant LOW ATTACHMENT LOW ATTACHMENT in English LOW ATTACHMENT if English-dominant 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?

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

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

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

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

26. SELF-PACED READING TASK forced high … the coach of the gymnasts / that was … forced low … the coaches of the gymnast / that was … 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? Was the coach signing autographs during the competition? The journalist interviewed the coach of the gymnasts that was 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. ON-LINE READING TIMES: MONOLINGUALS FRAME 1 The journalist interviewed the coaches of the gymnast FRAME 2 that was signing autographs during the competition. high attachment preference: high faster low attachment preference:low faster … the coaches of the gymnast … the coach of the gymnasts

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 high attachment preference low attachment preference … the coach of the gymnast that was signing autographs… Who was signing autographs? the coach the gymnast the coach the gymnast

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 MONOLINGUALS main effect of Site n/s: F1, F2 < 1 Site  Language n/s Site  Dominance n/s Site  Dominance  Language n/s

33. ON-LINE READING TIMES:MONOLINGUALS & BILINGUALS

34. SUBJECTS

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

36. BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING:1 + 1 = 1 • Do bilinguals process input as if they were monolinguals of each of their languages? NO • 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

37. BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING BILINGUALS… Babble babble in either language N1 P N2 RC… HIGH if SDOM Babble babble in either language N1 P N2RC…LOW if EDOM HIGH ATTACHMENT HIGH ATTACHMENT if Spanish-dominant LOW ATTACHMENT LOW ATTACHMENT if English-dominant X X X X LANGUAGE INDEPENDENT PROCESSING: same strategies, no matter the language;type of strategy based on language dominance LANGUAGE DEPENDENT PROCESSING:depending on the language of the stimulus?

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