Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

L2 Cognitive S2 > billingualism > Flashcards

billingualism Flashcards

1
Q

bilingualism definition (de Groot, 2015)

A
  • an individual’s ability (and actual practice) of communicating in two languages
  • and the linguistic knowledge base that enables this ability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

types of bilingual

A
  1. simultaneous bilingual
    –> more than 1 language learnt from birth
  2. early sequential bilingual –> learning a 2nd language after a 1st language early in life
  3. late sequential bilingual –> learning a 2nd language after a 1st language later in life
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

types of bilingual (how we learn)

A
  1. second language (L2) learning in a natural environment –> e.g. moving to a new country
  2. second language (L2) learning at school –> e.g. only using the L2 at school in class
  3. balanced/unbalanced bilingual –> the way the language is acquired and used will affect how that language is represented in the mind –> a balanced bilingual uses both languages equally
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

features common to all bilinguals

A

languages affect each other:
- effects of different languages on perception of colour
- mental representation of time
–> do we visual time lines left to right, or right to left
- expressions
- theory of mind
- executive function

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

speaking a 2nd language can affect the 1st language

A
  • when we stop practicing our first language we can struggle to re use it
  • can take a while to remember how to speak the first
  • frustrating
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

how to classify bilingualism

A
  1. separate lexicons
    - co-ordinate systems
    –> separate lexicons with separate semantic stores
  2. one lexicon
    - compound system
    –> all representations link to the same semantic store
    - subordinate system
    –> 1st language (L1) links to semantic store (L2 links to L1)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

co-ordinate systems

A

separate lexicons with separate referents
- L1 orthographic & phonological representations impact L1 semantic representations
–> vice versa
- L2 orthographic & phonological representations impact L2 semantic representations
–> vice versa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

compound system

A
  • all representations link to the same referent
    –> BOTH L1 orthographic & phonological representations AND L2 orthographic & phonological representations impact semantic representations
    –> vice versa
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

subordinative system

A
  • L1 word links to semantic referent
  • L2 word links to L1 word
  • L1 orthographic & phonological representations impact L2 orthographic & phonological representations
    –> vice versa
  • L1 orthographic & phonological representations impact semantic representations
    –> vice versa
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

shared and separate semantic stores (Lambert, Havelka, & Crosby, 1958) - methods

A
  • French-English Bilinguals classified into
    –> 1 group who learnt their languages in ‘separate’ contexts (different countries)
    –> 1 group who learnt their languages in a ‘fused’ context (same country)
  • Ps rated ‘house’, ‘drink’, ‘poor’, ‘me’ and their French equivalents along semantic dimensions
    –> e.g. fast–slow
    –> e.g. large–small
    –> how fast is this word? how long is this word?
  • words presented in French or English
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

results for Lambert, Havelka, & Crosby (1958)

A
  • ‘fused’ group showed less difference in their ratings than the ‘separate’ group
  • suggesting that the ‘fused’ group had a shared semantic store
  • but the ‘separate’ group had a semantic store linked to each language
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Representation of meaning in the Bilingual Lexicon (lexicosemantic representation)

A
  • pure subordinative, compound or coordinate bilingualism is highly unlikely
  • representation differs depending on:
    –> monolingual or bilingual
    –> context in which languages acquired
    –> level of L2 proficiency
    –> L2 learning strategy
    –> word type
    –> delay between current and previous use
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

two lexicons or one? (Kolers, 1966)

A
  • language switch costs
  • Ps asked to name items in French or English based on a cue
  • Ps slower to name images in mixed list than lists only testing one language
  • languages can be switched on or off
  • effort needed to switch between languages indicated by a delay in production
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what type of lexicon does Koler (1966) support?

A
  • separate lexicons
  • language independent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

two lexicons or one? (Preston and Lambert, 1969)

A
  • if languages can be switched on or off interference should not be found between languages
  • should only be found within languages
  • evidence of between language interference
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what type of lexicon does Preston and Lambert (1969) support?

A
  • one unified lexicon
  • language interdependent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

language independent lexicons

A
  • no competition between languages
  • only competition within a language
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

language interdependent lexicon

A
  • competition between languages
  • competition within languages
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

how can we test 2 lexicons or 1?

A
  • bilingual stroop task
    –> incongruent task = word written in different colour (red in blue)
    –> congruent = word written in same colour (red in red)
  • words are in English and French
  • asked to name colour in French or English
  • neutral condition = say the colour of the asterisks (blue or red)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Preston and Lambert (1969) - Bilingual Stroop task results

A
  • for English-French bilinguals
  • significantly slower responses to colour words compared to asterisks regardless of the language of the word or the response language
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

which lexicon does Preston and Lambert (1969) bilingual stroop support?

A
  • one unified Lexicon
  • language interdependent
    –> bilinguals do not switch off one of their languages
    –> interference is experienced between languages and within languages
    –> trying to name the colour of a word produces interference regardless of the language the word is written in or the language of the response
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

models of bilingual processing

A
  1. revised hierarchical model (1994)
  2. bilingual interactive activation model (BIA+)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

revised hierarchical model (summary)

A
  • L2 words stored in L2 lexicon that initially links to L1 lexicon
  • as proficiency increases L2 lexicon develops direct links with semantics
  • easier to refer back to L1 than is it to refer forward to L2
24
Q

Predictions from the architecture that assumes links from L2 to L1 are stronger than links from L1 to L2

A
  • translating from L2 to L1 is faster than L1 to L2
  • translating from L2 to L1 should be faster than picture naming for beginners (just use meaning/semantics)
  • translating from L2 to L1 should be no faster than picture naming for proficient L2 speakers (only use meaning/semantics)
25
Q

how to test speed of translation from L1 to L2 and vice versa

A
  • translation tested using lists with a random organization
    –> L2 to L1 translation faster than L1 to L2
  • translation also tested using lists organised by semantics
    –> only L1-to L2 translation affected by semantics
    –> suggests that L1 is linked to semantics but not L2
26
Q

picture naming vs L1/L2 translation in beginners

A
  • picture naming in L2 requires semantic representations to be activated
  • weak link between L1 and L2 orthographic & phonological representations
  • no link between L2 orthographic & phonological representations and semantic representations
  • strong link between L1 orthographic & phonological representations and semantic representations
27
Q

picture naming vs L1/L2 translation in prolific L2 speakers

A
  • strong links between L2 orthographic & phonological representations and semantic representations
  • strong links between L2 orthographic & phonological representations and L1 orthographic & phonological representations
  • strong link between L1 orthographic & phonological representations and semantic representations
28
Q

picture naming vs L1/L2 translation for beginners (Chen and Leung 1989; Kroll and Curley 1988)

A
  • picture naming in L2 was slower than translation from L1 to L2 for beginner speakers but not for proficient speakers
  • suggests that links between the semantic store and L2 lexicons develop as speakers become more proficient
29
Q

priming effects from L1 to L2

A
  • stronger links from L2 to L1 than L1 to L2
  • activation of L1 prime activates semantic representations and activates L2 lexical representation, but links are weak
  • activation of L2 prime activates L1 lexical representation and links are strong
  • semantic representations do not need to be activated for translation but probably are
30
Q

contrasting priming effects (Schoonbaert, Duyck, Brysbaert and Hartsuiker, 2009)

A
  • effects from L2 to L1 should be larger than L1 to L2
  • effects found from L1 to L2 BUT SMALLER effects found from L2 to L1
31
Q

semantic priming effects in the revised hierarchical model

A
  • links from L2 to L1 are stronger than links from L1 to L2
  • semantic representations are linked to L1 not L2
  • semantic priming effects should be ‘asymmetrical’
    –> semantic priming should be found from L2 to L1 but not from L1 to L2
32
Q

Effects have been found that support the RHM

A
  • de Groot and Nas (1991)
  • failed to find cross ­language semantic priming effects from L1 to L2 in Dutch–English bilinguals
33
Q

Effects have been found that do not support the RHM

A
  • Perea, Duñabeitia & Carreiras (2008)
  • found cross­ language semantic priming effects for BOTH DIRECTIONS in balanced Basque–Spanish and Spanish– Basque bilinguals
34
Q

Semantic Priming effects (Schoonbaert, Duyck, Brysbaert and Hartsuiker, 2009)

A
  • semantic priming effects found from both L1 to L2 AND L2 to L1
  • numerically Larger effects from L1 to L2
35
Q

summarise the revised hierarchical model

A
  • the model accounts for effects that are seen in the development of proficiency
  • the effects from priming studies do not fit the assumptions of the RHM
36
Q

Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA+)

A
  • both languages are stored in 1 lexicon
  • a language node marks lexical items as belonging to one or the other language
  • computational model
36
Q

how does the bilingual interactive activation model work?

A
  • activation is bottom up from features to words
  • top down feedback travels back down through the system
  • recognition of a word inhibits activation of other words
  • activation of letters is not language selective
  • all words that match the input are activated regardless of language
  • words have ‘resting levels’ that are adjusted based on proficiency, frequency etc.
  • the language node is connected to all words in that language
  • once a word in one language is activated all the words in the other language are inhibited
37
Q

semantic activation in the BIA+

A
  • at the word level semantic representations linked to words are activated
  • although selection of an English word inhibits Dutch words, a semantically related Dutch target may be recognised quickly due to the activation of related semantic representations
38
Q

word frequency in the BIA+

A
  • high frequency words have higher resting activation levels
  • for bilinguals with dominant L1, L1 words have a higher resting activation than L2 words
  • L2 words need more activation than L1 words to reach the threshold for selection
39
Q

priming effects in the BIA+

A
  • translation priming effects from L1 to L2
  • smaller effects from L2 to L1
  • translation priming effects from L1 to L2 only
  • BIA+ can account for the asymmetrical translation priming effects via the slower activation of L2 words due to the lower resting activity
  • it takes longer for the L2 ‘jongen’ to reach the threshold for activation than the L1 ‘boy’ resulting in smaller priming effects
40
Q

switch costs in the BIA+

A

cross language lexical decision task:
- Ps asked to press a button when they see a word they recognise
- slower to recognise words in mix lists (than a list in one language) due to one language being inhibited in the mixed list

41
Q

semantic priming effects in the BIA+

A
  • BIA+ model predicts that symmetrical effects would be seen for L1 to L2 AND L2 to L1
  • semantic priming due to the activation of semantic representations for words of both languages
42
Q

summary of the BIA+

A

can account for:
- asymmetrical translation priming effects
- switch costs
- semantic priming effects

43
Q

bilingual lexicon

A
  • evidence suggests that both languages are activated when a bilingual is processing language, regardless of the target language
  • language non selective hypothesis
  • models of bilingual processing are divided on the question of whether there are 2 separate lexicons or 1
    –> models with 2 lexicons predict competition within languages
    –> models with 1 lexicon predict competition between and within languages
44
Q

consequence of having more than one language (BIA+) model

A
  • inhibitory feature of the ‘language node’ in the BIA+ model provides an account of how competition between languages might provide bilinguals with stronger inhibitory control compared to monolinguals
  • language node is assumed to be domain general – not specific to language – suggesting that advantages from inhibiting a language may transfer to non verbal cognitive control
45
Q

Blumenfield and Marian (2013)

A
  • tested language competition between languages and inhibitory control
  • competition between languages was tested using a ‘visual world paradigm’
  • inhibitory control was tested using a ‘Simon Task’
46
Q

visual world paradigm

A
  • Spanish-English bilinguals listened to words whilst viewing a grid with images
  • bilingual Spanish-English participants should be distracted by the image of a thumb when hearing ‘pool’ because the Spanish word for thumb is ‘pulgar’
  • Ps who look at the thumb are assumed to be experiencing cross language competition from the phonological competitor
47
Q

the Simon Task

A
  • Ps have to press a key on a keyboard in response to the direction of arrows
  • when the direction of the arrow matches the side of the screen it is congruent
    –> e.g. left arrow on the left hand side of the screen
  • when the direction of the arrow does not match the side of the screen it is incongruent
    –> for incongruent responses the participant has to inhibit the ‘inappropriate’ response that would match the position of the arrow
  • typically congruent responses are faster than incongruent responses
  • a person with a small difference between congruent and incongruent responses has strong inhibitory processing
48
Q

results of visual world paradigm (Blumenfield and Marian, 2013)

A
  • bilingual participants with high proficiency were more likely to look at the cross language competitor thumb than participants with lower levels of proficiency
49
Q

results of Simon Task (Blumenfield and Marian, 2013)

A
  • bilingual participants with high proficiency had smaller Simon effects, suggesting better inhibitory processing than low proficiency bilinguals
50
Q

Blumenfield and Marian (2013) - relationship between cross language competition and inhibitory control

A
  • negative correlations were found between Simon effects and looks to cross language competitors
  • Ps with high levels of proficiency experienced cross language competition but were able to inhibit inappropriate responses more easily than bilinguals with lower levels of proficiency
  • suggests a link between cross language competition and inhibitory processing
51
Q

cognitive advantages of being bilingual

A
  • a number of researchers have found advantages in cognitive function for bilinguals over monolinguals
    –> Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan (2004)
    –> Costa et al. , (2008)
    –> Luk, De Sa, & Bialystok (2011)
  • but not all research finds advantages:
    –> Morton and Harper (2007)
    –> Paap & Greenberg (2013)
52
Q

Judith Kroll arguments

A
  • much of the previous work has been correlational
  • research looking at the causal mechanisms is sparse
  • whether advantages are seen or not may depend on the proficiency of the bilingual, how they learnt their language and how we measure it
53
Q

reasons for failures to find cognitive advantages for bilinguals

A
  • differences in tasks
  • differences in level of proficiency
  • differences in the age at which the second language was learnt
  • social economic status
  • age of the person when tested
  • differences between using and knowing a second language
54
Q

Kroll quote on bilingualism

A

“The consequences of bilingualism may vary depending on which bilinguals are tested”

L2 Cognitive S2 (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions