Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick _____________________________________

1. Psycholinguistics Universität des Saarlandes Dept. 4.3: English Linguistics SS 2009 Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick_____________________________________

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. In fact, the situation is probably a mixture of these two positions: • WATs and other tests show concrete concepts like • tree and tableseem to be shared, as in ‘compound’ • diagram B above • but abstract concepts like freedom and justiceare • language-specific, as in ‘coordinate’ diagram A • above

8. words identical in meaning and similar in form seem to share a single ‘lexical entry’ die Karotte carrot la carotte die Adresse address l'address but the systematic semantics of the individual languages may still differ, thus German has rough synonyms Karotte Mohrrübe Adresse Anschrift

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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:

16. L1 L2 conceptual level single system semantics x -- y syntax x -- y morphology x -- y lexis x -- y phonology x -- y

17. 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 L2 conceptual level single system semantics x -- y syntax x -- y morphology x -- y lexis x -- y phonology x -- y

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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”)

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 8. Language comprehension  means understanding what we hear and read comprehension as active search for coherence and sense based on expectations arising from context, not a passive item-by-item recording and analysis of words in a linear sequence.

27. meaning and real-world expectations play a more important role than grammar top-down versus bottom-up processing Until the age of four, kids interpret a-d the same way; even adults require longer to respond to c, d: a. The cat chased the mouse. b. The mouse was chased by the cat. c. The mouse chased the cat. d. The cat was chased by the mouse.

28. Asked to paraphrase e-g in their own words, subjects ‘normalized’ the sentences 60% of the time: e. John dressed and had a bath.f. John finished and wrote the article on the weekend.g. Don't print that or I won't sue you.

29. Asked if they saw any difference between g and their ‘incorrect’ paraphrase h, 53% still said no h. If you print that, I'll sue you. • clearly, the ‘Reality Principle’ guides our comprehension of linguistic structures

30. 8.1 Comprehension of sounds How can we identify sounds and words when sounds vary? How to wreck a nice beach = How to recognize speech Notice positional variants Consider necessity of top-down interpretation

31. Phoneme restoration effect a. It was found that the -eel was on the axle.  wheel b. It was found that the -eel was on the shoe.  heel c. It was found that the -eel was on the orange.  peel d. It was found that the -eel was on the table.  meal

32. We hear progressively different allophones of a single phoneme as the same: spread p in peel versus puckered p in pool versus unaspirated p in speed or spool but we hear separate phonemes as distinct although they also occupy points along a single continuum pie and buy differ only in the initial consonant

33. we attend only to difference in Voicing Onset Time (VOT) VOT for pie about 50 milliseconds later than for buy even sounds halfway between p and b in VOT are heard as one or the other rather than as a combination of the two

34. this categorial perception of sounds is a distinctly human trait • sometimes cited as evidence of innate language ability • but differences between fricatives like fa tha sa sha are perceived continuously on basis of aperiodic noise

35. 8.2 Comprehension of words Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP): separate, simultaneous and parallel processes work to identify words

36. by pronunciation: to recognize homophones leadN and ledV pst by spelling: to recognize homographs windN and windV by grammar: to recognize smell as noun or verb while hear can only function as verb by semantics: synonyms like little and small antonyms like little and big hyponyms like car versus vehicle etc

37. PDP can link word meanings to perceptual and functional paradigms (how a thing looks, sounds etc, what it's used for) consider Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomena you're trying to recall the word for the belief that life's events are preordained by a deity you remember that the word begins with p, then that word begins with pre-, and that it ends with -tion

38. Bathtub Effect: recall is best for beginnings and ends of words, like the head and feet of a person which are visible though the middle remains submerged in the tub you recall associated words like: predilection pretension Presbyterian preordained you finally come up with: predestination

39. Spreading activation networks: as the search progresses, more words and concepts are accessed related in various ways, including schematic knowledge e.g. the association of Presbyterian and predestination via 'religion‘ Both comprehension and production of both speech and writing require accessing the mental lexicon. Garman (1990: 249) diagrams input-output relations as following: