Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Bilingualism > Midterm terms > Flashcards

Midterm terms Flashcards

1
Q

Types of Bilingualism

A

early vs. late, unconscious vs. conscious, gramatical vs communicative, balanced vs. dominant, compound (two linguistic realizations with one context) vs. coordinate (separate grammars and lexicons) vs. suboordinate (one grammar for L1, passed on to L2)

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

Signs of communicative fluency in a language

A
  • metalinguistic knowledge
  • sociolinguistic and sociocultural knowledge (sarcasm)
  • contextual information
  • intonation
  • discourse strategies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Domains of langauge use

A

family, friends, religion, employment, education

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

Diglossia

A

High and low varieties of langauge (i.e. modern standard arabic vs. egyptian arabic)

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

Nested diglossia

A

within low variety, a high and low variety exist (i.e. port au prince creole vs. rural creole)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Diglossia without bilingualism

A

only elite speaks language, most aren’t bilingual, not sustainable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bilingualism without diglossia

A

individual bilingualism, langauges take up same domains

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

Nonce borrowing

A

bilingual in bilingual context borrows word/ idiom

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

Types of code switching

A

insertion, alternation, congruent lexicalization (combination)

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

Phonological processes of babies

A
  • Deletion of syllable final processes- bed-be
  • Deletion of unstressed syllables- spaghetti to be
  • Stressed syllable is reduplicated- bottle- baba
  • Consonant cluster reduction- desk-des
  • stopping- replacing fricatives with stops- thing-ting
  • fronting- ship-sip
  • gliding- look-wook
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Manners of testing infants

A
  • High amplitude sucking
  • Conditioned visual fixation
  • Turned head paradigm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How do infants perceive allophones

A

Infants can perceive subtle vowel differences before 6 months of age, subtle consonant differences before 10-12 months, this ability is lost after

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bare root

A

language where plain word can be used without adjustment (english)- Languages without bare roots (French) cause finite verbs to emerge earlier in children

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

Stages of syntactic development

A
  • One word stage- holophrastic- 1-1.5 years
  • Two word stage- 1.5-2 years, POS unclear but word order of target L
  • Telegraphic stage- 2-2.5 years- longer, more complex sentences, lack of bound morphemes and function words
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Code switching

A

bilinguals ability to select language according to the interlocuter, context, etc. (not language mixing)

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

Negative transfer

A

L1 and L2 differ in some property, L1 structures are found in L2

17
Q

Positive transfer

A

L1 and L2 are alike in a property, L2 benefits from similarity

18
Q

Principles

A

hold true to all languages

19
Q

Parameters

A

like light switches, can be switched on and off

20
Q

Learnability of L2

A

possibility 1: no overlap of languages
possibility 2: languages partially overlap
possibility 3: total overlap: L2 is superset of L1
possibility 4: total overlap: L2 is subset of L1

21
Q

Subjacency

A

the claim that young children could not acquire such knowledge from their linguistic input, hence that it must be built in, as a principle of UG- constraints of movement

Subjacency is a general syntactic locality constraint on movement. It specifies restrictions placed on movement and regards it as a strictly local process

22
Q

What is some evidence pertaining to critical period hypothesis?

A
  • Children deprived of linguistic input (genie- no language input until puberty)
  • Deaf children with hearing parents
  • Aphasia- early vs late brain damage
  • SLA
23
Q

Fossilization

A

L2 speakers stabilizing at a point below native-like attainment- selective in grammar- not targeted inflection

24
Q

Missing surface inflectional hypothesis

A

those with optional use of inflectional morphology fail to map abstract morphosyntactic features into overt morphemes- retrieval issues

25
Q

Genessee et. al 2004

A

Goal: to examine the formation of negative sentences
Subjects: bilingual children of varying ages
Predictions and Major findings: Found that French children acquire target structures more rapidly than English children (children are sensitive to finiteness); by age 2-3 French kids had more target structures
English, French, Finiteness, Genessee

26
Q

Paradis and Genessee 1996

A

Goal: Investigate the existence of interdependence between two simultaneously acquired languages (english and french), specifically in the case of verbal inflection, negation placement, and pronominal subjects.
Subjects: Three english/french bilingual children, whose parents used the “one parent, one language” rule. Children’s speech was recorded during naturalistic play sessions, at 3 intervals, when the children where 2;0, 2;6 and 3;0 approximately.
Predictions and Major findings:
Looked for transfer, delay, or acceleration- all of which would be evidence for transfer between grammars
Investigated negative placement, verbal inflection, pronominal subject
Finiteness: way more finite verbs in french than english, no evidence of transfer or acceleration. Finiteness in french among bilinguals was comparable to that of monolinguals. No evidence for significant delays or accelerations in anything.

Bottom line- supports theory of two independent and independently developing systems
p+g- pg tips- tea- auTonomEA

27
Q

Paradis and Navarro 2003

A

Bilingual children dropped subjects less frequently than spanish monolinguals but more frequently than english monolinguals
Monolinguals have stage with no overt subject, bilingual child didn’t have this stage
Differs between low and high informative contexts
Mother of bilingual used overt subjects somewhere in between
Cross-linguistic at syntax pragmatic interface as seen in other studies
Both systems are at work- langauge input from parents, as well as syntax interface
Supports DLSH
NavarrOVERT subjects

28
Q

Werker et. al 2006

A

Goal: Test infants’ ability to perceive phonemic contrasts in their language and others
Subjects: monolingual infants whose mother tongue was English, Salish, and Hindi ages 6-8 months, 8-10 months, and 10-12 months
Predictions and Major findings: there are differences in processing and development in bilinguals with respect to perception
Before 10-12 months: subtle phonetic differences between sounds are perceived, no matter whether sounds are used in target language.
After 6 months this ability is lost for vowels that are not contrastive in the target language.
After 10-12 months this ability is lost for consonant not contrastive in the target language.
after these time periods, they have to WERK to differentiate, must WERK really hard to be a trilingual in these three languages

29
Q

White 1992

A

If UG is available in L2, parameters can explain and predict cases of transfer
If L1 parameters are applied to L2, UG is incomplete
Is UG just a new way of expressing the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (the systematic study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities. Historically it has been used to establish language genealogies.)? No - UG is different
Ok there is something about general and specific something and im sorry but i have no idea what its talking about
UG is active in L2, if L1 parameters are adopted in L2, the learner is not stuck with L1 parameters forever
unrealistic to expect comprehensive paradigm since SLA is not a unitary phenomenon

30
Q

Newport 1990

A

Goal: Learn about age effects on language acquisition
Subjects: Study 1: late learner of L1 asl, born deaf- properties of spoken lang
“Less is more” hypothesis- we lose ability
Study 2: later learners of L2
Predictions and Major findings: morphology is harder to acquire than syntax
and language acquisition decreases with age of acquisition for both studies

Newport is in RI and Cranston RI has one of the highest deaf populations, NEWborns better at ASL, drunk on port- syntax but not morphology

31
Q

Burns et. al

A

tested /ba/ vs /pa/ vs /pha/
Results suggest that there is more than one pattern to bilingual phonetic perception (there are cases of one L dominant over the other, as well as balanced results)
Ba and burns

32
Q

Gawlitzek- Maiwald and Tracy 1996

A

In children aged 2-4; evidence for early structural separation and patterns of grammar development that were the same of monolinguals
Mixing occurs and peaks at a certain stage (hypothesis- bilingual bootstrapping). Child uses knowledge of the left periphery, which emerges earlier, to to compensate for English lag
You have the GAWL to bootleg (bootstrap) also G and German

33
Q

Wei, 2000 and Romaine, 2001

A

Redefine types of bilinguals & determine external factors that lead to bilingualism/multilingualism (politics, natural disaster, religion, culture, economy, education, etc.)
Subjects:
Predictions and Major findings: language contact results in many different types of bilinguals (compound bilingual, coordinate bilingual, receptive bilingual, balanced bilingual, achieved bilingual, ascribed bilingual)

34
Q

Lardiere, 2006

A 
fossilization with Patty 
syntax easier than morphology 
struggled with inflection
fossilization is selective
Lard isn’t used anymore and neither is the name Patty  →  fossilized
35
Q

(Meisel, 1989)

A

Study of word order and subject verb agreement in two German-French bilinguals
SVO dominant in both, but German more variable
Adverb-> V -> S only in German
shows interdependence, does not disprove DLSH
code switching vs language mixing
only indiscriminate language mixing would count as potential evidence for one mixed system
Meisel → Weisel→ Germany→ German word order → Interwar years → Interdependence

36
Q

(White 1985,86)

A

French + Spanish as L1, English L2
Initially, everyone good at accepting overt subj. in English, Spanish accepted more null subjects in English than French speakers, over time increased in proficiency, suggesting parameters can be reset to L2 values
Didn’t behave as a cluster
Verb subject and that-trace violation
yogurt almond cluster is white, white people reset other peoples land, parameters reset to L2

37
Q

Volterra and Taeschner, 1978

A

3 stage model
1- single lexicon, no translation equivalents - everyone else says this is wrong
2- 2 lexicons but one syntactic system, same word order for both languages even if wrong
3- 2 separate systems
VolTERRA air fire water → 3 systems

38
Q

De Houwer, 2005

A

one parent one language
tested aspects of syntax in bilinguals
2 separate syntactic systems
De Houwer - DLSH and De Houwer has two words and two systems

Bilingualism (2 decks)

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