billingualism Flashcards
bilingualism definition (de Groot, 2015)
- an individual’s ability (and actual practice) of communicating in two languages
- and the linguistic knowledge base that enables this ability
types of bilingual
- simultaneous bilingual
–> more than 1 language learnt from birth - early sequential bilingual –> learning a 2nd language after a 1st language early in life
- late sequential bilingual –> learning a 2nd language after a 1st language later in life
types of bilingual (how we learn)
- second language (L2) learning in a natural environment –> e.g. moving to a new country
- second language (L2) learning at school –> e.g. only using the L2 at school in class
- 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
features common to all bilinguals
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
speaking a 2nd language can affect the 1st language
- 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 to classify bilingualism
- separate lexicons
- co-ordinate systems
–> separate lexicons with separate semantic stores - 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)
co-ordinate systems
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
compound system
- all representations link to the same referent
–> BOTH L1 orthographic & phonological representations AND L2 orthographic & phonological representations impact semantic representations
–> vice versa
subordinative system
- 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
shared and separate semantic stores (Lambert, Havelka, & Crosby, 1958) - methods
- 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
results for Lambert, Havelka, & Crosby (1958)
- ‘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
Representation of meaning in the Bilingual Lexicon (lexicosemantic representation)
- 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
two lexicons or one? (Kolers, 1966)
- 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
what type of lexicon does Koler (1966) support?
- separate lexicons
- language independent
two lexicons or one? (Preston and Lambert, 1969)
- 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
what type of lexicon does Preston and Lambert (1969) support?
- one unified lexicon
- language interdependent
language independent lexicons
- no competition between languages
- only competition within a language
language interdependent lexicon
- competition between languages
- competition within languages
how can we test 2 lexicons or 1?
- 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)
Preston and Lambert (1969) - Bilingual Stroop task results
- for English-French bilinguals
- significantly slower responses to colour words compared to asterisks regardless of the language of the word or the response language
which lexicon does Preston and Lambert (1969) bilingual stroop support?
- 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
models of bilingual processing
- revised hierarchical model (1994)
- bilingual interactive activation model (BIA+)
revised hierarchical model (summary)
- 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
Predictions from the architecture that assumes links from L2 to L1 are stronger than links from L1 to L2
- 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)
how to test speed of translation from L1 to L2 and vice versa
- 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
picture naming vs L1/L2 translation in beginners
- 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
picture naming vs L1/L2 translation in prolific L2 speakers
- 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
picture naming vs L1/L2 translation for beginners (Chen and Leung 1989; Kroll and Curley 1988)
- 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
priming effects from L1 to L2
- 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
contrasting priming effects (Schoonbaert, Duyck, Brysbaert and Hartsuiker, 2009)
- 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
semantic priming effects in the revised hierarchical model
- 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
Effects have been found that support the RHM
- de Groot and Nas (1991)
- failed to find cross language semantic priming effects from L1 to L2 in Dutch–English bilinguals
Effects have been found that do not support the RHM
- Perea, Duñabeitia & Carreiras (2008)
- found cross language semantic priming effects for BOTH DIRECTIONS in balanced Basque–Spanish and Spanish– Basque bilinguals
Semantic Priming effects (Schoonbaert, Duyck, Brysbaert and Hartsuiker, 2009)
- semantic priming effects found from both L1 to L2 AND L2 to L1
- numerically Larger effects from L1 to L2
summarise the revised hierarchical model
- 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
Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA+)
- both languages are stored in 1 lexicon
- a language node marks lexical items as belonging to one or the other language
- computational model
how does the bilingual interactive activation model work?
- 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
semantic activation in the BIA+
- 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
word frequency in the BIA+
- 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
priming effects in the BIA+
- 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
switch costs in the BIA+
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
semantic priming effects in the BIA+
- 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
summary of the BIA+
can account for:
- asymmetrical translation priming effects
- switch costs
- semantic priming effects
bilingual lexicon
- 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
consequence of having more than one language (BIA+) model
- 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
Blumenfield and Marian (2013)
- 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’
visual world paradigm
- 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
the Simon Task
- 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
results of visual world paradigm (Blumenfield and Marian, 2013)
- bilingual participants with high proficiency were more likely to look at the cross language competitor thumb than participants with lower levels of proficiency
results of Simon Task (Blumenfield and Marian, 2013)
- bilingual participants with high proficiency had smaller Simon effects, suggesting better inhibitory processing than low proficiency bilinguals
Blumenfield and Marian (2013) - relationship between cross language competition and inhibitory control
- 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
cognitive advantages of being bilingual
- 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)
Judith Kroll arguments
- 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
reasons for failures to find cognitive advantages for bilinguals
- 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
Kroll quote on bilingualism
“The consequences of bilingualism may vary depending on which bilinguals are tested”
