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
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

3

• 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

4

• 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.
5

• 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

6
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
7

• 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

8
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
9

• 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

10

• 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

11

• 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

12

• 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

13

• 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

14

• 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

15

• 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

16

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

17

• 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

18
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
19

• 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)

20
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)
21
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.
22

• 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

23

• 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

24

• 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

25

• 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

26

• 8. Language comprehension
• ? means understanding what we hear and read
• comprehension as active search for coherence and
• sense based on expectations arising from context,
• not a passive item-by-item recording and analysis
  of
• words in a linear sequence.

27

• meaning and real-world expectations play a more
• important role than grammar
• top-down versus bottom-up processing
• Until the age of four, kids interpret a-d the
  same way
• even adults require longer to respond to c, d
• a. The cat chased the mouse.
• b. The mouse was chased by the cat.
• c. The mouse chased the cat.
• d. The cat was chased by the mouse.

28
Asked to paraphrase e-g in their own words,
subjects normalized the sentences 60 of the
time e. John dressed and had a bath.f. John
finished and wrote the article on the
weekend.g. Don't print that or I won't sue you.
29

• Asked if they saw any difference between g and
  their
• incorrect paraphrase h, 53 still said no
• h. If you print that, I'll sue you.
• clearly, the Reality Principle guides our
• comprehension of linguistic structures

30
8.1 Comprehension of sounds How can we identify
sounds and words when sounds vary? How to wreck
a nice beach How to recognize speech Notice
positional variants Consider necessity of
top-down interpretation
31
Phoneme restoration effect a. It was found that
the -eel was on the axle. ? wheel b. It was
found that the -eel was on the shoe. ? heel c.
It was found that the -eel was on the orange. ?
peel d. It was found that the -eel was on the
table. ? meal
32
We hear progressively different allophones of a
single phoneme as the same spread p in peel
versus puckered p in pool versus unaspirated p in
speed or spool but we hear separate phonemes as
distinct although they also occupy points along a
single continuum pie and buy differ only in the
initial consonant
33
we attend only to difference in Voicing Onset
Time (VOT) VOT for pie about 50 milliseconds
later than for buy even sounds halfway between p
and b in VOT are heard as one or the other rather
than as a combination of the two
34

• this categorial perception of sounds is a
  distinctly
• human trait
• sometimes cited as evidence of innate language
  ability
• but differences between fricatives like fa tha sa
  sha are perceived continuously on basis of
  aperiodic noise

35

• 8.2 Comprehension of words
• Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP)
• separate, simultaneous and parallel processes
  work
• to identify words

36

• by pronunciation to recognize homophones
• leadN and ledV pst
• by spelling to recognize homographs
• windN and windV
• by grammar to recognize smell as noun or verb
• while hear can only function as verb
• by semantics synonyms like little and small
• antonyms like little and big
• hyponyms like car versus vehicle etc

37

• PDP can link word meanings to perceptual and
• functional paradigms (how a thing looks, sounds
  etc,
• what it's used for)
• consider Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomena
• you're trying to recall the word for the belief
  that life's
• events are preordained by a deity
• you remember that the word begins with p, then
  that
• word begins with pre-, and that it ends with -tion

38

• Bathtub Effect recall is best for beginnings and
  
• ends of words, like the head and feet of a person
  
• which are visible though the middle remains
• submerged in the tub
• you recall associated words like
• predilection pretension
• Presbyterian preordained
• you finally come up with predestination

39

• Spreading activation networks as the search
• progresses, more words and concepts are accessed
• related in various ways,
• including schematic knowledge
• e.g. the association of Presbyterian
• and predestination via 'religion
• Both comprehension and production of both speech
• and writing require accessing the mental lexicon.
  
• Garman (1990 249) diagrams input-output
  relations
• as following

40
(No Transcript)