Bil..Fix Final

8/2/2019 Bil..Fix Final

1/20


2/20

Content Sheet

Introduction Language Processing in Bilingual Speakers

Revised Hierarchical Model

Conclusion

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, After: 12pt, Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5",Space Before: 12 pt, After: 12 pt, Linespacing: Double

Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, Underline

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold, Nounderline

Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold

Formatted: Font: 12 pt


Formatted: Justified, Space Before: 12 pt,After: 12 pt, Line spacing: Double


3/20

ReferencesFormatted: Space Before: 12 pt, After: 12

pt, Line spacing: Double


Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Linespacing: Double




4/20

Introduction

Language acquisition is an ability of a human being to recogniserecognize, understand and

identify language and the capacity to make and utilize words for communications with other

human beings. An ability of human being to use language productively and effectively depends

upon how much he has knowledge on variety of tools like syntax, grammar, phonetics,

vocabulary and other language rules. Acquisition of native language or mother tongue is the

acquisition of first language, while acquiring of additional language is referred to as second

language acquisition.

There are many general approaches which states that how an infant acquire language.

Rational frame theory states that children learn language by having interaction with

environment (Hayes & Roche, 2001). This theory highlighted the importance functional

circumstances and environment and also reveals the significance of forecasting and influencing

emotional events like feelings and behaviors. MacWhinney (1999), competition model defined

language acquisition process as a cognitive process.

Language Processing in Bilingual Speakers

Children are inclined towards native languages as they born, while the ability of a human

being to learn L2 language (language other than the native language or in simple words the


Formatted: No underline



Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5Line spacing: Double




5/20

mother tongue) depends upon many factors like age, effort by learner, differences in native and

second language, the urge and motivation level of learners etc. There is a view, that in language

learning process, the learner gets help from native language knowledge, while some people

states that its all about the exposure to the second language and practice of L2 language. No

doubt, the input difference in L1 and L2 is very large, in both quantity wise and also quality-wise.

For example, a child growing in an English language environment will definitely hear thousand of

English words in a day. Thus, his input of L1 language, in both quality and quantity, is not

comparable with inputs of L2 language. Second language learner might be able to get the same

input quantity but the quality of L2 will still be different. An advantage to L2 learner is that he

will get the linguistic and non-linguistic education formally.

The research demonstrate that there is a relationship between amount of exposure to a

language an individual get to the word (lexical) development (Lewedeg & Oller, 1997). The aim

of this review is to discuss and analyse the main criticisms towards the Revised Hierarchical

Model (RHM) and to investigate the capability of this model for research in bilingualism. I will

critically evaluate the different views about the RHM in comparison with the Word-association

Model, before drawing any conclusions.

The first question is how the multilingual speaker processes the words while speaking

different languages. L1 learners learn new things about this world as well as learning how to

communicate in the form of his/her native language. On contrary, L1 learners have an

advantage in already having the knowledge of the purpose of language and grammar but L2

learners have to search the meaning of words. L1 learners do not learn the meaning of words

by listening or reading the meaning but rather they extract the meaning from continuing

communication signals. In language development, the usage base approaches are also very

useful. For many years, linguistic research on bilingualism was restricted only to those



6/20

exceptional cases that were experts in both languages and were able to interchange easily

between both languages as they acquired both languages earlier in their life-time. While some

researchers of that time were not interested in understanding the mechanism of language

processing in bilinguals because they assumed that the native language processing was not

affected by the L2 language. However, in recent years, circumstances have changed

considerably as now researchers are studying unequal bilinguals who are not expert in L2

language and their study results demonstrate that the L2 does have an impact on L1 processing.

In case of bilinguals, it is suspected that bilingual speakers probably use one or two

memory stores. Recently, research highlighted that generally there are two different memory

stores; if both languages are learnt at different settings, for example if one language is learnt at

home while other is learnt at school but if both languages are leant at same time in same setting

than an individual has the same memory store (Ervin, 1954). Another recent research have also

addressed this issue and have tried to discover that how two languages are related to each

other in real life and what sort of mechanisms are involved in the recovery of words and in

language processing.

Revised Hierarchical Model

Theoretical and conceptual illustration in the memory of bilingual individual is extremely

significant and an extensively discussed topic in the linguistic literature. Some research studies

demonstrated that a person, who can speak two or more languages possibly have different

memory storage for each language in his/her mind and there is no dependence between the

illustrations, sign and symbols of any two languages (Kolers, 1963). While, some research

studies showed that no matter how many languages a person can speak the representation


Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0",Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, Underline



7/20

system of all languages are the same (Schwanenflugel and Rey, 1986). Both of the above

mentioned studies constitute the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM).

The basis of RHM is based on previous studies. Although, RHM applies to bilinguals who

can learn both languages all together but rather the main focus of RHM model is to those

bilingual speakers who can learn L2 language after getting expert in L1. The four main features

of RHM model are the separation of lexical (word) and conceptual (meaning) representation,

separate lexicon for languages and selective access, asymmetries and irregularity between L1

and L2 processing and finally the developmental feature of bilingualism. As per these studies,

there are two levels to the representations; first level constitutes the word level known as

lexical level whereas second level constitutes the meaning level known as conceptual level

(Durgonoglu and Roediger, 1987). At level 1, the word of each language is individually stored,

while level 2 (Conceptual level) consists of system of units in which the words of each language

share the general semantic meaning. The bilingual speaker actually has representation of words

and meanings in hierarchical manners which are stored separately and independently at lexical

level but share common semantic system across two languages.



8/20

This figure is showing that lexical links from L2 to L1 are strong while these links are weak from

L1 to L2. An individual can easily find out words when he or she is going to translate from L2 language

to L1 but when an individual need to translate from L1 to L2, he or she finds it difficult to find out

words from L1 to L2. Similarly conceptual links are strong in any human being related to Li language

while these links are weak for L2 language. But one thing needs to mention that as an individual gets

proficiency in L2 language, these conceptual links become stronger.

Lexical links is the relationship between words of different languages at first level (lexical

level), also known as word association. Whereas, the conceptual links is the relationship

between words of any two languages in memory and also the sense and meaning they

symbolises (Dufour and Kroll, 1995).In simple words, RHM explains that the lexical link is strong

from a persons second language to his/her first language as compare to lexical link of a persons

first language to second language. An individual associates his/her first language to second

language, in learning process of second language. Human being learns words of second

language by making association and relationship of these words with the words of first/native

language. The conceptual links are not strong as far as the second language is concerned. It

could only be strong, if an individual become an expert in second language and he/she does not

depend on native language to know the meanings. This model also depicts the dominance of

first language vocabulary over the second language vocabulary. Model of RHM describes the

irregularity of lexical and conceptual links of L1 and L2 languages. As far as L1 is concerned, it

has strong lexical and conceptual links while the L2 has weak lexical and conceptual links. There

are possibilities that these links might turn around, if an individual leaves his/her native

language and start speaking L2 language for a long period of time. Thus there are chances that

his/her lexical and conceptual links become stronger in L2 language.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic

Comment:]pwpPitpPiswPstPqtrepPppp



Formatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0",Line spacing: Double


Comment:]ywtgPstPnpwEsee theexplanation below the fig


9/20

This figure is showing word of same meaning in two different languages, one in English (friend) and other

in Spanish (amigo). If a person whose first language is English, listen to the word Friend, sets of concepts

will be automatically comes in his or her mind which will be different if he/she listen to the word Amigo

as both words have same meaning. But the association of person with these words is different. "Friend"

may be connected with the thought of McDonalds and toys, while "amigo" may be related with the

concepts like smiles and play. The difference in the conceptual characteristics is because of different

situations in which the words are learned and used.

Another model known as the Conceptual Feature Model that has argues that not matter

a word relates to which language, it just simply stimulates sequence of conceptual and abstract

aspects. These conceptual features are different for words having same meaning but different

words are used in different languages as it is explained in example of Friend and Amigo. The


Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold, Italic


Comment:]stPywtgPPpPlPPpgpPwhpPPlpgolP


10/20

reason for variation in conceptual features is that the words of different languages having the

same meanings are learnt and used under different conditions and circumstances (De Groot,

1992). For example, friend and amigo are two different words, one is in English and other is in

Spanish language, but the conceptual associations behind these two words are different. Other

concept highlighted by this model is that the real and tangible words have more conceptual

attributes than non-figurative and intangible words.

Research on bilingual mind is performed to better understand the mechanisms that

undergo in the bilingual mind to process all the learned information. The main aim behind this

research is to use English language which is spoken and understood all around the world to

make English advertisements for non-native consumers. The priority of all advertisers is to make

advertisement in native language of consumers instead of their second language (Brill, 1994). In

study by Brill (1994), two psycholinguistic models are used to investigate the framework of

information processing in bilingual individuals while understanding the advertisement. When

RHM model is employed, it is observed that if an advertising company markets its products by

making advertisement in L1 language then consumers are able to understand, comprehend and

remind such advertisement in better way as compare to when advertisement is made in L2

language. However, from information processing approach, there are also some situations in

which advertisement in L2 language is as successful as in L1 language. As far as Conceptual

Feature Model is concerned, it suggests that the concrete advertisement may influence the

bilingual consumers and they might be better able to recall and comprehend the advertisement.

Recent studies show that when an individual listens to some word in L2 language; the

information about that word in first language also turns on (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002). There

is a perspective that, a bilingual speaker with a high proficiency in L2 might be able to work

independently in second language but recent work demonstrates that, despite getting expertise


Comment:]npwEPstPpwtg


11/20

in L2 does not mean that the individual is able to turn off the influence of L1 language. However,

these influences are not only from L1 to L2. Sometimes L2 language also influences the L1

language when an individual has aptitude and expertise in l2 language (Van Hell & Dijkstra,

2002).

Bilingual Interactive Activation Model (BIA) is a model of bilingual lexicon represented by

McClelland and Rumelhart (1981). As per this model, when a expert bilingual is exposed to a

visual inputs, many words become activates and they become compete with one another for

selection. The identification of a word in both first and second language depends about the

close properties of words in both L1 and L2 languages. In simple words, there is evidence that,

when a person is doing any task only in one language, the close words become active in other

language also. This can be explained with help of a simple example that gate is a word in English

which has close or neighbor word game in same language and also has neighbor word in Spanish

which is gato which means cat in Spanish language. These neighborhood features of words

influence the selection of words. The word selection decision in cognates is faster in both L1 and

L2. Bilingual are able to recognize the cognates easily as compare to monolingual. All these

evidence support the basic idea of Bilingual Interactive Activation Model which states that no

matter that a person wants to work in one language only, but if he or she is an expert and

proficient bilingual, then while doing work in one language, the information about words in both

languages become activated whether he or she is intended to do it or not.

Some other studied also suggest that during initial stage of acquisition, the influence of

first language is more on L2 than the influence of L2 on L1 (Jared & Kroll, 2001). As the skill in L2

increases, this influence comes at the same level. But in real life, an expert bilingual use one

language more between two languages. Such influences are perfectly balanced. The hub of

Revised Hierarchical Model is to describe that during processing the language how words to


12/20


13/20

This result is against to some previous stages according to which access to meaning in L2 is

achieved when a person starts getting proficiency in L2 language.

Now lets talk about the criticism which has been done on RHM model at different

stages. The assumptions taken into RHM model are under questions by other researchers. It is

the most popular recent model which describes the bilingual language processing. The critics

said that there is little support and proof of separate lexicon and the little or no proof of having

access to select language. Moreover, the addition of links between translation correspondents

at the word/lexical level is likely to slow down word identification. Other researchers said that

the link between L2 words and their meanings is stronger than mentioned in RHM model and

the proof of difference is also existed between dependent and independent language semantic

characteristics.

The first problem point out by critics in RHM model is little or no evidence for the

presence of separate lexicon for each language and activation and deactivation of selective

access. According to RHM model, bilinguals can hamper or turn on one of their languages,

depending on the situation (Dijkstra and Grainger, 1998). But as per critics instead of supporting

this assumption, there are many evidences which are against this assumption of RHM model. In

the field of spoken word identification, Spivey and Marian (1999) examined whether Russian

English bilinguals would be inclined by L2 knowledge while listening to L1 target words and

instructions. They made use of the so-called visual world model. In this model members see a

few familiar objects e.g., a candy, an apple, a candle and a fork and are asked to do an action on

one of them (e.g., pickup the candle). The eye movements of members are followed to see

which objects the participants possess. Under these conditions, member often look at the candy


14/20

before they look at the candle. This interfering effect is reliable with the cohort model of

auditory word recognition, which states that all words starting with the same initial sounds are

activated at first and are subsequently reduce as more information reaches the brain. Given that

both candle and candy start with the same sounds, so they compete with each other only for

some time. Spivey and Marian (1999) observed whether a similar kind of competition would be

experiential across languages. They reported that L2 names of the objects activated, even

though theL2 was not involved in the experiment.

Confirmation against language-selective access in illustration word identification was

stated by Dijkstra and Schriefers (2000). They offered DutchEnglish bilinguals with catalogs of

English and Dutch words and asked the participants to press a button if an English word

appeared. If Dutch word is showed, they were asked to wait for the next word. They were

mainly concerned in the comparison between words that only exist in English (e.g., home) and

words that exist both in English and in Dutch but have a different meaning in the two languages,

such as room, which means cream in Dutch. The thought was that if participants were able to

switch off their Dutch lexicon, they should not be affected by whether or not the letter

sequence formed a word with a different meaning in Dutch. They found that participants

needed more time to decide that a homograph was an English word (657 ms) than that a non-

homograph was an English word (577 ms), even though the frequency of the homograph was

much higher in English than in Dutch and even though all test words were readily recognized as

valid English words (more than 97% correct responses). However, we get proof against language

selective access, but not against RHMs assumption of separate lexicons. It could be that there

are two different lexicons, activated in parallel by the sensory input. Although the issue of

separate lexicons with parallel access vs. a unitary lexicon with parallel access is very difficult to


15/20

decide empirically, because evidence could be obtained by looking at word form interactions

during visual word recognition. If it can be shown that word forms of one language do not

interact with those of the other language as part of lexical access, then that would be good

evidence for at least functionally separated lexicons. On the other hand, if the word forms of

the non-target language interact in very much the same way as the word forms of the target

language, then that would be good evidence for an integrated lexicon.

A second challenge for the RHM is that it predicts a solid translation priming effect from

L2 words to L1 targets, given the strong lexical connections between L2 words and their L1

translations. Unfortunately, the evidence here is very meager (Brysbaert and Hartsuiker, 2009).

Much of the evidence is based on the masked priming technique. In this technique, a prime is

presented before the target for such a short period of time (typically 5080 ms) that it is not

perceived consciously. Still, the prime has an effect on the target since associatively related

primes induce faster target processing than unrelated primes.

RHM is appealing because of the simplicity of the processes involved. Words are

recognized, activate their meaning and their cross-language equivalents, and that is it. However,

as soon as researchers attempt to implement the various assumptions in a working model or

start to assess the detailed processes of word recognition and translation, they are confronted

with the fact that the simple ideas behind RHM pose serious implementation problems. In the

previous section we already discussed the issue of excitatory lexical connections. This problem is

further exacerbated by the fact that many translations are not simple one-to-one mappings

(Tokowicz and Kroll, 2007). Another example of how real-life language use complicates the

belief of RHM is the finding that the reading of written words is not entirely based on the


16/20

orthographic code, but involves the phonological code as well (Grainger, Kiyonaga and Holcomb,

2006). This can be concluded from the finding that a target word (e.g., brain) is more efficiently

processed when it has been preceded by a briefly presented homophonic prime ( brane) than

when it has been preceded by a control prime that does not sound the same (brank). Again, this

feature of language processing involves more than a simple augmentation of RHM by making

a distinction between an orthographic and a phonological lexicon in L1 and L2.

A fourth issue on which the RHM has been challenged concerns the assumption of

limited conceptual mediation in L2 word understanding and translation. Only for very high levels

of proficiency does the model assume equivalent conceptual mediation in L2 and L1. Already in

the year of RHMs publication, de Groot and van Hell (1994) published an article in which they

questioned the limited involvement of semantics in L2 processing. They asked participants to

translate words from L1 to L2 (forward) or from L2 to L1 (backward), and observed that very

much the same variables predicted translation performance in each direction. In their own

words: meaning played a somewhat more important role in forward than in backward

translation, whereas familiarity appeared to have a larger influence in backward translation. A

few other differences between forward and backward translation were detected, but, when

considering the complete stimulus set, the differences between translation directions were

generally small. Importantly, these were not data from balanced bilinguals, as could be

assumed from the developmental hypothesis of RHM, but from unbalanced bilinguals with

limited fluency in their second language. Even for them, conceptual mediation played a

significant role in L2L1 translation. Duyck and Brysbaert (2004) addressed the issue of

asymmetric conceptual mediation with numerical stimuli. They made use of the finding that the

time needed to understand numbers depends on the magnitude of the number: participants


17/20

need more time to read large numbers (e.g., 9, 12) than small numbers (e.g., 1, 4). Duyck and

Brysbaert examined whether this finding would result in a number magnitude effect when

participants were asked to translate numbers. They indeed obtained such an effect, both in

forward translation and in backward translation, indicating semantic access during L2 word

translation (for similar results in backward translation from L3, see Duyck and Brysbaert, 2008).

Importantly, these effects were observed even when using a set of newly learned number words

(a so-called foreign language), which the participants acquired only one hour before testing. On

the basis of these findings, Duyck and Brysbaert (2004) hypothesized that when there is a

complete overlap of meaning between L1 and L2 words, new L2 words are not acquired through

lexical connections or episodic connections, but by early mapping of L2 word forms to meaning.

Brysbaert and Duyck cite the Thierry and Wu (2007) study as evidence contrary to the

RHM in that it shows that there is cross-language activation of the translation equivalent in ERP

measures for relatively proficient Chinese-English bilinguals when they perform a semantic

relatedness task in their L2. The Thierry and Wu data are indeed problematic for the RHM

because the RHM assumes that only learners at early stages of L2 acquisition will need to exploit

the L1 translation equivalent for the purpose of accessing meaning. However, Brysbaert and

Duyck go to some length to demonstrate that the L2 can be processed conceptually without

lexical mediation. The Thierry and Wu data are therefore problematic for their account as well

because the Chinese-English bilinguals in that study were immersed in English as the L2 and

should by all accounts be able to process English without access to the Chinese translation

equivalent. The main results of the Thierry and Wu study were recently replicated in a

behavioral study with deaf signers reading English as their L2. Again, the result was that there


18/20

was evidence for activation of the translation in American Sign Language when reading written

words in English.

Conclusion:

In short, Brysbaert and Duyck argue that the RHM is no longer a useful characterization

of the way in which bilinguals process words and concepts in each of their two languages. Their

proposal to leave the model behind is based on findings in the research reported in the last 15

years that appear to refute the model's assumptions and predictions. In the last 15 years there

have been a number of important discoveries that require that the model be revised. However,

contrary to the conclusion that Brysbaert and Duyck reach, that a model of bilingual word

recognition such as the BIA+ model (Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002) does a better job of

accounting for the available data, we argue that the RHM was not primarily a model of word

recognition but a model of word production. Furthermore, with respect to two of the model's

central claims, one in regard to asymmetries between the two languages and the other

concerning the consequences of L2 learning history, there remain enduring questions about

development and control that can neither be answered within a narrow model of word

recognition nor be left behind. Brysbaert and Duyck have reviewed a number of different

empirical results and arguments that they consider problematic for the RHM. In 15 years of

research, one hopes that new discoveries are reported. During this period we have learned a

great deal about bilingual development and performance that requires revision to the RHM and

indeed to all models of bilingual language processing. In this brief response, we have attempted

to capture at least the spirit of these developments. The RHM had the appealing feature of

being a testable model and the almost 300 citations of the Kroll and Stewart (1994) paper that

Formatted: Font: Bold


19/20

now appear in the Web of Science include a range of studies that have tested the model,

extended the model, and applied the model more broadly.

References:

1. Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K.M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second languageacquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 550568.

2. Brysbaert M, Duyck W. Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of bilinguallanguage processing after 15 years of service? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. in press

3. Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J., & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in maskedsemantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 1-22.

4. Dufour, R., & Kroll, J.F. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of theconcept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory & Cognition 23 (2), 166-180.

5. David Luna, Laura A. Peracchio (1999), "WHATS IN A BILINGUALS MIND?: HOW BILINGUALCONSUMERS PROCESS INFORMATION", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, eds. Eric

J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 306-311.

6. De Groot, A. M. B+ (1992) Determinants of word translation+ Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 10011018.

7. Dijkstra, T., van Heuven, W. J. B. & Grainger, J. (1998).Simulating cross-language competitionwith the bilingual interactive activation model. Psychologica Belgica, 38,177196.




Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri),

12 pt, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", SpaAfter: 0 pt, Line spacing: Double, Don't adjspace between Latin and Asian text, Don'tadjust space between Asian text and number



20/20

8. Dijkstra T. Bilingual word recognition and lexical access. In: Kroll JF, De Groot AMB, editors.Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford University Press; New York: 2005.

pp. 179201.

9. Harm, M. W. & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings ofwords in reading:Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review,

111, 662720.

10.Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A.M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mappingform to meaning in two languages. In de Groot A. M.B.&KrollJ. F. (eds), Tutorials in bilingualism:

Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 201224. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

11.Kroll JF, Bobb SC, Misra MM, Guo T. Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence forinhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica. 2008;128:416430.

12.McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects inbetter perception, Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological review,88, 375405.

13.Marslen-Wilson,W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25,71102.

14.Potter, M.C., So, K.F., Von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L. (1984). Lexical and conceptualrepresentation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 23(1), 23-38.

15.Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C. & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental priming in the development ofcomputational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114,273315.

16.van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T. & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects inbilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458483.

17.Weber, A. & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in nonnative spoken-word recognition. Journal

of Memory and Language, 50, 125.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khuram-shahzad
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Bil..Fix Final

Documents