Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

2.2 cognitive 2 > language - bilingual processing > Flashcards

language - bilingual processing Flashcards

1
Q

define bilingualism (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

3 types of bilingual

A

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

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

types of bilingual - learning of L2 (second langage)

A

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

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

balanced vs unbalanced bilingualism

A

balanced/unbalanced bilingual = the way the language is acquired and used will affect how that language is represented in the mind
= balanced bilingual uses both languages equally

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

features common to all bilinguals

A

languages affect each other e.g. speaking a second language can affect your first one

  • effects of different languages on perception of colour
  • mental representation of time
  • expressions
  • theory of mind
  • executive function
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

3 theories of lexicons and bilingualism

A

separate lexicons:

  • co-ordinate systems
  • separate lexicons with separate semantic stores

one lexicon:

  • compound system = all representations link to the same semantic store
  • subordinative system = first language (L1) links to semantic store - second language (L2) links to L1
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

co-ordinate systems of lexicon

A

separate lexicons with separate referents

L1 orthographic and phonological representations <–> L1 semantic representations

L2 orthographic and phonological representations <–> L2 semantic representations

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

compound system of lexicons

A

all representations link to the same referent

L1 orthographic and phonological representations + L2 orthographic and phonological representations <–> semantic representations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

subordinative system of lexicons

A

L2 orthographic & phonological <–> L1 orthographic and phonological <–> semantic representations

L2 links to L1 which links to semantic referent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

evidence of shared and separate semantic stores - fused vs separate

A

Lambert et al (1958)

method:

French-English Bilinguals classified into:

  • 1 group who learnt their languages in ‘separate’ contexts (e.g. learning french whilst in france and english in england)
  • 1 group who learnt their languages in a ‘fused’ context (e.g. learnt french and english in france)

participants rated house, drink, poor, me and their French equivalents along semantic dimensions e.g. fast–slow, large–small

results:

  • ‘fused’ group showed less difference in their ratings than the ‘separate’ group

conclusion:

  • ‘fused’ group had a shared semantic store
  • ‘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
11
Q

lexicosemantic representation

A

representation of meaning in a lexicon

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

bilingual 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

language switch costs study

A

Kolers (1966)

participants say name of image in English with a red background or in French when it has a blue background

slower to name images in mixed lists than when they are all to be named in one language

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what does language switch cost show about number of lexicons

A

languages can be switched on or off
effort needed to switch between languages indicated by a delay in production

separate lexicons (language independent)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

opposing evidence for language switch costs

A

Preston and Lambert (1969)

if languages can be switched on or off interference should not be found between language only within languages

evidence of between language interference

one unified lexicon (language interdependent)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

language independent view

A

2 lexicons

no competition between languages (L1 and L2)

competition within a language (within L1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

language interdependent view

A

1 lexicon

competition between L1 and L2

competition within a language too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

bilingual stroop task

A

Preston and Lambert (1969)

english-french bilinguals

congruent, incongruent, and neutral (asterisks) conditions with both languages used

results:

slower responses to colour words compared to asterisks regardless of the language of the word or the response language

conclusions:

evidence that for a bilingual 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

bilinguals do not switch off one of their languages

interference is experienced between languages and within languages

one unified lexicon (Language interdependent)

19
Q

revised hierarchical model (RHM) of bilingual processing

A

Kroll & Stewart (1994)

L2 words stored in L2 lexicon that initially links to L1 lexicon

as proficiency increases L2 lexicon develops direct links with semantics

20
Q

predictions from RHM (3)

A

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
  • translating from L2 to L1 should be no faster than picture naming for proficient L2 speakers
21
Q

test of translation between L1 and L2 speeds

A

used lists with random organisation

L2–> L1 = faster than L1 –> L2

in line with RHM

22
Q

test of L1 lexicon linked to semantics, not L2

A

use of lists organised by semantics for translation

only L1 –> L2 translation affected by semantics

suggests L1 is linked to semantics but not L2

activation of semantics in the L1–>L2 condition interferes with translation

23
Q

test of translation and picture naming in beginners

A

picture naming requires semantic representations to be activated

picture naming in L2 for beginners:
L2 o+p –> L1 o+p <–> semantics
L2 –> L1 link is weak, L1 <–> semantics = strong

picture naming in L2 for prolific speakers:
L2 o+p <–> L1 o+p <–> semantics <–> L2 o+p
all 3 components all interlinked strongly

Chen and Leung 1989; Kroll and Curley 1988

results:

picture naming in L2 was slower than translation from L1 to L2 for beginner speakers but not for proficient speakers

conclusions:

links between the semantic store and L2 lexicons develop as speakers become more proficient

24
Q

test of priming effects from L2 –> L1 and L1 –> L2 according to RHM

A

Priming effects

L2 –> L1 links are stronger than L1 –> L2
will reaction times for L1 primes then L2 targets be faster than L2 primes then L1 targets

translation priming:
activate L1 prime

  • activates semantics (strong link)
  • activates L2 lexical (this is a weak link)
    L1 –> L2

activate L2 prime

  • activates L1 lexical - strong link
  • semantic link doesn’t need to be activated for translation but probably are (this is from L1 not from L2)
25
Q

challenges to the RHM - priming effects

A

Schoonbaert et al (2009)

L2 –> L1 should be stronger than L1 –> L2

BUT found L1 –> L2 links and smaller effects from L2 –> L1

26
Q

semantic priming and the RHM - testing this with priming task

A

L2 –> L1 links are stronger than L1 –> L2
semantics are linked to L1 not L2

need to see if spreading activation works in other languages for semantic priming

L1 prime (“girl”)

  • activates semantic representation (+ spreading activations - e.g. to “boy”)
  • links between semantics for “boy” and the L” words are weak and unlikely to activate the L2 word for “boy”
  • therefore no semantic priming would be found

L2 prime (“jongen”)

  • activates L1 word “boy”
  • this then activates semantic for “boy”
  • this can then spread activation to “girl”
  • therefore when L1 target “girl” is presented, response to it will be quick
27
Q

semantic priming in the RHM summary

A
  • semantic priming effects should be ‘asymmetrical’
  • semantic priming should be found from L2 -> L1 but not from L1 -> 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 et al (2008) found cross­ language semantic priming effects for both directions in balanced Basque–Spanish and Spanish– Basque bilinguals
28
Q

challenges to the RHM - semantic priming effects

A

Schoonbaert et al (2009)

Semantic priming effects found from both L1 -> L2 and L2 -> L1

numerically larger from L1 -> L2

29
Q

what does the RHM account for or not

A

DOES:

  • effects seen in the development of proficiency - beginners vs experienced

NOT:

  • effects from priming studies don’t fit RHM assumptions
30
Q

bilingual interactive activation model (BIA+)

A

Dijkstra & Van Heuven (2002)

  • computational model
  • 1 lexicon
  • node = lexical items, belonging to one or the other language –> language node is connected to all words in that language

language
word
letter
feature

  • activation = bottom up –> from features to words ( feature - letter - word - language)
  • feedback = top down (language - word - letter - feature)

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

once a word in one language is activated all the words in the other language are inhibited

31
Q

BIA+ - semantic activation

A

at the word level semantic representations linked to words are activated

selection of an English word inhibits Dutch words –> but a semantically related Dutch target may be recognised quickly due to the activation of related semantic representations

32
Q

BIA+ - resting levels

A

words have ‘resting levels’ that are adjusted based on proficiency, frequency etc.

  • high frequency = high resting level = quick activation
  • if dominant L1 –> L1 words have a higher resting activation than L2 words, reach threshold for selection with less activation
33
Q

translation priming effects in BIA+

A

translation priming effects found:

  • from L1 -> L2 Smaller effects from L2 -> L1 (Schoonbaert et al., 2009)
  • from L1 -> L2 only (De Groot and Nas, 1991; Gollan et al., 1997)

BIA+:

  • account for the asymmetrical translation priming effects via the slower activation of L2 words due to the lower resting activity
  • takes longer for the L2 ‘jongen’ to reach the threshold for activation than the L1 ‘boy’ resulting in smaller priming effects
34
Q

BIA+ –> switch costs study

A

Grainger & Beauvillain (1987); Von Studnitz & Green (1997)

method:

Cross Language Lexical Descision Task – press a button when you see a word you recognise

results:

slower to recognise words in a mixed list (both languages) because one language is inhibited

35
Q

semantic priming effects and the BIA+

A

Schoonbaert et al (2009)

BIA+ model predicts that symmetrical effects would be seen for L1 -> L2 and L2 -> L1 semantic priming due to the activation of semantic representations for words of both languages

36
Q

3 things BIA+ can account for

A

asymmetrical translation priming effects
switch costs
semantic priming effects

37
Q

the bilingual lexicon two models comparison

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 (RHM - Kroll & Stewart, 1994)
  • models with 1 lexicon predict competition between and within languages (BIA+ - Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002)
38
Q

cognitive advantages of bilingualism

A

neurocognitive adaptation to bilingualism mechanisms are a result of the way the brain handles and uses the languages at one’s disposal

languages are constantly and jointly active, which in turn creates a state of competition for both language comprehension and production

39
Q

consequences of having more than one language - the 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

40
Q

consequences of having more than one language - competition and inhibition - methodology

A

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
  • Participants who look at the thumb are assumed to be experiencing cross language competition from the phonological competitor

Simon task:

  • participants 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
  • 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
41
Q

consequences of having more than one language - competition and inhibition - study results

A

Visual World Paradigm:
proficient = more distracted by image in other language (cross language competitor)
domain specific effect

Simon task
proficient = smaller Simon effect = better inhibitory control
domain general effect

conclusions:

negative correlation between Simon effect ad looking at cross language competitor

means bilinguals are distracted by second language and have better inhibitory processing

shows link between cross language competition and inhibitory processing

42
Q

cognitive advantages and disadvantages of bilingualism - issues with research into this

A

lots of evidence for cognitive advantages, but also disadvantages

Judith Kroll argues that:

  • 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
43
Q

reasons for failures to find cognitive advantages for bilinguals (6)

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

2.2 cognitive 2 (12 decks)

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