Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr' Neal R' Norrick _____________________________________

1
Lecture Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R.
Norrick_____________________________________

• Psycholinguistics

• Universität des Saarlandes
• Dept. 4.3 English Linguistics
• SS 2009

2

• 6.6 Formulaic speech
• Formulaic speech also violates normal acquisition
  
• order
• ? but formulas play a special role in L2
  acquisition
• because they represent structures beyond
• current competence

3

• routines like be careful, let's play and you know
• patterns like that's ___ and Do you want____?
• affect L2 acquisition positively
• perhaps because they facilitate interaction
• perhaps because they develop into syntax

4
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
5

• 7. Bilingualism
• individual bilingualism versus societal
  bilingualism
• Compare bilingualism versus diglossia
  (Ferguson)
• balanced versus unbalanced
  bilingualism

6
dominant, usually first, native language
versus weaker, second or foreign language
(second or foreign language for special purpose)
7

• 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

8
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
9

• 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

10

• 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

11

• 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

12

• 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

13

• 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

14

• 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

15

• 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

16
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

17

• 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

18

• 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 Weinreichs typology works only at
the lexical level, but bilinguals may experience
interference at all levels from phonetics up to
semantics.
19

• 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

20
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
21

• 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

22
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
23

• 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

24

• 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

25

• 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

26

• 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

27

• 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

28

• 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

29

• 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

30

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

31

• 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

32
Of course, some languages may naturally
share structures at certain levels English-Germa
n 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
33

• 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)

34
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
Weinreichs coordinate bilingual)
35
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.
36

• But, as in Weinreich, theres 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
• Its probably necessary to complicate the third
  
• model

37

• 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

38

• 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

39

• 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