Psy1302 Psy1302 Psychology of Psychology of LanguageLanguage

Bilingualism IBilingualism I

Guest Lecturer – Mathieu Le Guest Lecturer – Mathieu Le CorreCorre

Why study Why study bilingualism?bilingualism? Multilinguals > MonolingualsMultilinguals > Monolinguals # grow up monolingual = # grow up # grow up monolingual = # grow up

bilingualbilingual More children educated in 2nd or 3rd More children educated in 2nd or 3rd

language than in 1stlanguage than in 1st Multilingual countriesMultilingual countries

– US: min 14.3 million spanish/english bilingualsUS: min 14.3 million spanish/english bilinguals– Eritrea: educated in Tigrigna, Arabic, EnglishEritrea: educated in Tigrigna, Arabic, English– India: 15 official languages, 1,650 spokenIndia: 15 official languages, 1,650 spoken– New Guinea: 870 languages, typical person New Guinea: 870 languages, typical person

speaks 3 languagesspeaks 3 languages

Why study Why study bilingualism?bilingualism? Test limits of human cognition & Test limits of human cognition &

language faculty language faculty – Is language faculty “monolingual” or Is language faculty “monolingual” or

“multilingual”?“multilingual”?– Does learning a second language Does learning a second language

cause developmental delays?cause developmental delays?

Bilingual first Bilingual first language acquisitionlanguage acquisition Mish-mash theory: Mish-mash theory:

– Unitary LAD initially treats two Unitary LAD initially treats two languages as single language and languages as single language and mashes them up. Differentiate later.mashes them up. Differentiate later.

Differentiation theory:Differentiation theory:– We are all born multilingual! We are all born multilingual!

Distinguish languages from the start Distinguish languages from the start and keep them separate.and keep them separate.

Early evidence for Early evidence for unitary: unitary: “go the “go the bébitebébite…”…” Code-mixing: Code-mixing:

– Combine lexical items from two input languagesCombine lexical items from two input languages ““The free mixing of English and German in The free mixing of English and German in

many of her sentences was a conspicuous many of her sentences was a conspicuous feature of her speech. But the very fact feature of her speech. But the very fact that she mixed lexical items proves that that she mixed lexical items proves that there was no real bilingualism. Words from there was no real bilingualism. Words from the two languages did not belong to two the two languages did not belong to two different speech systems but to one…”different speech systems but to one…”

– Léopold concerning his daughter Hildegarde Léopold concerning his daughter Hildegarde (1939-1949)(1939-1949)

Stage theory: Volterra Stage theory: Volterra & Taeschner (1978)& Taeschner (1978) Theory also motivated (in part) by Theory also motivated (in part) by

code-mixingcode-mixing First stage: one monolingual lexical First stage: one monolingual lexical

systemsystem Second stage: two lexicons, one Second stage: two lexicons, one

syntactic systemsyntactic system Third stage: differentiated lexicon & Third stage: differentiated lexicon &

syntaxsyntax

Logical problems for Logical problems for mish-mash theorymish-mash theory Uncontroversial: adult bilinguals Uncontroversial: adult bilinguals

distinguish their two languagesdistinguish their two languages How do you ever differentiate two How do you ever differentiate two

languages out of one system???languages out of one system??? Code-mixing: adults do it too! Are Code-mixing: adults do it too! Are

they confused?they confused?

Testing mish-mash Testing mish-mash furtherfurther Phonology: babblingPhonology: babbling Lexical/semantic developmentLexical/semantic development

– Word segmentationWord segmentation– Mutual exclusivity/contrastMutual exclusivity/contrast– Rate of bilingual lexical development Rate of bilingual lexical development

Bilingual grammar developmentBilingual grammar development Pragmatic developmentPragmatic development

– Sensitive to language of interlocutor?Sensitive to language of interlocutor?

Do bilingual babies babble Do bilingual babies babble bilingually?bilingually?

Supra-segmental features (rhythm, stress-timing) of Supra-segmental features (rhythm, stress-timing) of babbling: babbling: – English and French have different supra-segmental featuresEnglish and French have different supra-segmental features

e.g. English: KINGdom (e.g. English: KINGdom (first first syllable syllable longer, louder, higher pitchedlonger, louder, higher pitched) ) e.g French: surprise (syllables e.g French: surprise (syllables same pitch and loudnesssame pitch and loudness but but lastlast

syllable longer)syllable longer) Do French/English babies distinguish these supra-Do French/English babies distinguish these supra-

segmental patterns? segmental patterns? (Maneva & Genesee, 2002)(Maneva & Genesee, 2002)

– YES!!YES!! Babbling with French father: shows phonological features of FrenchBabbling with French father: shows phonological features of French Babbling with English mother: shows phonological features of FrenchBabbling with English mother: shows phonological features of French

French/English word French/English word segmentation segmentation (Polka & (Polka & Sundara, 2003)Sundara, 2003) French & English have distinct supra-French & English have distinct supra-

segmental patterns. Do bilingual babies segmental patterns. Do bilingual babies mash ‘em up?mash ‘em up?

9 French/English 8-month olds9 French/English 8-month olds Use Juscyck Headturn Preference paradigmUse Juscyck Headturn Preference paradigm

– Familiarize to bisyllabic word (e.g. kingdom or Familiarize to bisyllabic word (e.g. kingdom or beret)beret)

– Test passages Test passages In French for French fam., in English for English fam.In French for French fam., in English for English fam. With familiarized word (beret or kingdom)With familiarized word (beret or kingdom) Without familiarized word (devis or hamlet)Without familiarized word (devis or hamlet)

– Test whether headturn times are differentTest whether headturn times are different

Bilingual babies are Bilingual babies are not confused!not confused!

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Mutual exclusivity: a Mutual exclusivity: a strong test of mish-strong test of mish-mashmash Mutual Exclusivity/principle of Mutual Exclusivity/principle of

contrastcontrast– Essence: no two words have the Essence: no two words have the

same meaningsame meaning What should happen if mish-What should happen if mish-

mash? mash? – No translation equivalents!No translation equivalents!

1-year old bilinguals restrict 1-year old bilinguals restrict Mutual Exclusivity to each Mutual Exclusivity to each language!language!

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fren

ch-E

nglis

h 1;

2

Fren

ch-E

nglis

h 1;

6

Fren

ch-L

SQ 1

;2

Fren

ch-L

SQ 1

;6

Engl

ish-

Span

ish

1;2

Engl

ish-

Span

ish

1;6

Engl

ish-

Span

ish

1;3

Engl

ish-

Span

ish

1;6

% t

ran

sla

tion

eq

uiv

ale

nts

From Petitto, 2001

Is bilingual lexical Is bilingual lexical development slower than development slower than monolingual?monolingual? Standardized tests of vocab in 1 Standardized tests of vocab in 1

language (MCDI): bilingual infants & language (MCDI): bilingual infants & children score lower than monolingualschildren score lower than monolinguals

The poor things are delayed!The poor things are delayed! Conceptual vocabulary (CV): Conceptual vocabulary (CV):

– combined vocabulary in both languages combined vocabulary in both languages minus translation equivalentsminus translation equivalents

– Bilingual CV = monolingual CV Bilingual CV = monolingual CV (Pearson et (Pearson et al, 1993) al, 1993)

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

First word Two-word 1st 50 words

Early stages: Early stages: bilinguals = bilinguals = monolingualsmonolinguals

Petitto et al, 2001

Monolinguals Bilinguals

SyntaxSyntax

How can we tell whether children How can we tell whether children have distinct grammars or just a have distinct grammars or just a mish-mash?mish-mash?

How early do we want to look?How early do we want to look?– Two-word combinations Two-word combinations

SyntaxSyntax How can we tell whether children have two distinct How can we tell whether children have two distinct

grammars or just a mish-mash?grammars or just a mish-mash?– Look at lexically unilingual utterances (De Houwer, 2005)Look at lexically unilingual utterances (De Houwer, 2005)

Contrasting structures:Contrasting structures:– French vs. English: NegationFrench vs. English: Negation– ““I do I do NOTNOT likelike peas” & “J’ peas” & “J’aimeaime PASPAS les pois” les pois”– Diff: keep negation syntax separateDiff: keep negation syntax separate– MM: mix-up systemsMM: mix-up systems

“ “I I likelike NOTNOT peas” & “Je peas” & “Je PASPAS aimeaime les pois” les pois” Same structure: emerge at same or different time?Same structure: emerge at same or different time?

– E.g. conjugated (finite) vs. infinitive (non-finite)E.g. conjugated (finite) vs. infinitive (non-finite) How early do we want to look?How early do we want to look?

– Syntax emerges as soon as babies begin to combine wordsSyntax emerges as soon as babies begin to combine words– So, want two-word stage So, want two-word stage

Review of 15+ Review of 15+ longitudinal studies longitudinal studies (De (De Houwer, 2005)Houwer, 2005)

29 children, ages 1 to 6 29 children, ages 1 to 6 One parent, one languageOne parent, one language

Spanish/Basque, French/Swedish, French/English Spanish/Basque, French/Swedish, French/English Latvian/English, Japanese/Engiish, Italian/English… Latvian/English, Japanese/Engiish, Italian/English…

Multiple aspects of syntax studiedMultiple aspects of syntax studied– Gender, pronouns, verb morphology, Gender, pronouns, verb morphology,

negation, word order…negation, word order… ALLALL children keep syntactic systems children keep syntactic systems

separate for all dimensions studiedseparate for all dimensions studied– E.g French/English don’t mix up negation E.g French/English don’t mix up negation

syntax (Paradis & Genesee, 1996)syntax (Paradis & Genesee, 1996)

A caveat: similar A caveat: similar surface structures surface structures interfere interfere (not covered in class, this is (not covered in class, this is

just for enrichment)just for enrichment) German & English word order (Döpke, 2000)German & English word order (Döpke, 2000) Main clauses: both S(ubject) V(erb) O(bject)Main clauses: both S(ubject) V(erb) O(bject)

– The dog belongs to meThe dog belongs to me– Der Hund gehört mirDer Hund gehört mir

Relative: English is -VO German is -OVRelative: English is -VO German is -OV– The dog which is looking for the bone belongs The dog which is looking for the bone belongs

to meto me– Der Hund der nach dem Knochen sucht, gehört Der Hund der nach dem Knochen sucht, gehört

mirmir The dog [that bone looking] belongs to meThe dog [that bone looking] belongs to me

German/English bilingual children overgeneralize German/English bilingual children overgeneralize SVO to relatives in GermanSVO to relatives in German

Bilingual first Bilingual first language acquisition language acquisition (review)(review) Mish-mash theory: Mish-mash theory:

– Unitary LAD initially treats two Unitary LAD initially treats two languages as single language and languages as single language and mashes them up. Differentiate later.mashes them up. Differentiate later.

Differentiation theory:Differentiation theory:– We are all born multilingual! We are all born multilingual!

Distinguish languages from the start Distinguish languages from the start and keep them separate.and keep them separate.

Testing mish-mash Testing mish-mash furtherfurther

Phonology: babblingPhonology: babbling Lexical/semantic developmentLexical/semantic development

– Word segmentationWord segmentation– Mutual exclusivity/contrastMutual exclusivity/contrast– Rate of bilingual lexical development Rate of bilingual lexical development

Bilingual grammar developmentBilingual grammar development Pragmatic developmentPragmatic development

– Sensitive to language of interlocutor?Sensitive to language of interlocutor?

Bimodal 2 year-olds keep Bimodal 2 year-olds keep grammars separate in real grammars separate in real time!time! Take children who speak French & sign in Take children who speak French & sign in

Langue des Signes QuébécoiseLangue des Signes Québécoise Look at times when sign & speak at same Look at times when sign & speak at same

time. What happens?time. What happens? Simultaneous speak/sign have distinct word Simultaneous speak/sign have distinct word

order!order!

SpokenSpoken My dogMy dog My friendMy friend Cow small Cow small cowcow

SignedSigned dog mydog my Friend myFriend my Small cow Small cow cowcow

Petitto et al., 2001

Mish-mash is wrong at Mish-mash is wrong at all levels!all levels! Phonology: babblingPhonology: babbling Lexical/semantic developmentLexical/semantic development

– Word segmentationWord segmentation– Mutual exclusivity/contrastMutual exclusivity/contrast– Rate of bilingual lexical development Rate of bilingual lexical development

Bilingual grammar developmentBilingual grammar development

Functional Magnetic Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Resonance Imaging (fMRI)(fMRI) Amount of activity of a brain area is Amount of activity of a brain area is

correlated with relative amount of blood correlated with relative amount of blood flowing to it (the hemodynamic response)flowing to it (the hemodynamic response)

fMRI tracks blood flow in the brain over timefMRI tracks blood flow in the brain over time Example: Syntax vs. lexical access: same Example: Syntax vs. lexical access: same

brain area?brain area?– Image syntax task (e.g. passivization)Image syntax task (e.g. passivization)– Image lexical task (e.g. synonym generation)Image lexical task (e.g. synonym generation)– Syntax - lexical = areas specific to syntaxSyntax - lexical = areas specific to syntax– Lexical - syntax = areas specfic to lexicalLexical - syntax = areas specfic to lexical

PAY ATTENTION TO SUBTRACTED TASK!PAY ATTENTION TO SUBTRACTED TASK!

The scanner limits The scanner limits responses that can be responses that can be recordedrecorded

Sentence processing: Sentence processing: English vs. Mandarin English vs. Mandarin (Chee et al., 1999)(Chee et al., 1999)

SubjectsSubjects– 5 5

English/Mandarin English/Mandarin bilinguals (18-22 bilinguals (18-22 years old)years old)

– Exposed to both Exposed to both languages before languages before age 6age 6

– Fluent in both Fluent in both languageslanguages

Subjects are balanced Subjects are balanced bilingualsbilinguals

English: Yellow Mandarin: Blue Overlap: Green

Left side of brain is on right side of image

English activation = E sentence judgment - tamil readingMandarin activation = M sentence judgment - tamil readingAreas activated: Broca’s and surrounding tissue (frontal brain)Wernicke’s and surrounding tissue (back of brain), supplementarymotor area (dorsal part of frontal brain)

Word meaning with (balanced) Word meaning with (balanced) Spanish/English Bilinguals Spanish/English Bilinguals (Illes et al., 1999)(Illes et al., 1999)

Spanish-English Spanish-English bilingualsbilinguals Concrete/abstract judgmentsConcrete/abstract judgments Lowercase/UPPERCASE judgmentsLowercase/UPPERCASE judgments

– e.g. ADVICE, potato, soul, FROG…e.g. ADVICE, potato, soul, FROG…– All nouns; same in English & SpanishAll nouns; same in English & Spanish

Predictions? Predictions? – Semantic - Case for each language?Semantic - Case for each language?– Semantic Spanish - Semantic English?Semantic Spanish - Semantic English?

Left sideof brainis on leftside of image

L1 is activationfor L1 semantic-L1 case;L2 is activation forL2 semantic - L2 case;L2 - L1 is activationFor L1 semantic -L2 semantic

ActivationsBroca’s: 6 subjectsWernicke’s: 4 subjectsSupplementary motorArea: 4 subjectsNo effect of language

Why the left frontal Why the left frontal cortex?cortex? Phonology?Phonology?

– Abstract/concrete engages phonological Abstract/concrete engages phonological processingprocessing

– BUT semantic (abstract/concrete) vs. BUT semantic (abstract/concrete) vs. phonological(e.g. rhyme generation) still phonological(e.g. rhyme generation) still activates LIPCactivates LIPC

Anterior LIPC: semanticAnterior LIPC: semantic Posterior LIPC: phonologicalPosterior LIPC: phonological Multiple other studies obtained same Multiple other studies obtained same

resultresult

Word completion with early & Word completion with early & late Chinese/English bilinguals late Chinese/English bilinguals (Chee et al., 1999)(Chee et al., 1999)

Early bilinguals (n = 15)Early bilinguals (n = 15)– Exposed to speech and writing before Exposed to speech and writing before

age 6age 6 Late BilingualsLate Bilinguals

– L1 MandarinL1 Mandarin– L2 English, exposure after 12L2 English, exposure after 12

Task: complete partial visually-presented word either at the end (exp 1) or at the beginning (exp 2)Subtracted task: looking at a crossin the middle of the screen (fixation).

Activations (from front to back)Broca’s area & surrounding tissueSupplementary motor areaWernicke’s area & surrouding tissueOccipital/parietal (way at the back ofthe brain -- an area associated with reading)

Left of the brain is on right of images

No difference No difference between English between English & Mandarin& Mandarin

No difference No difference between Early between Early and Late!and Late!

Why no effect of age of Why no effect of age of exposure?exposure? Think about “feral” children….Think about “feral” children…. What could they learn after critical period?What could they learn after critical period? What aspect of language did task used What aspect of language did task used

with early/late test?with early/late test? Right, it tested lexical processing which is Right, it tested lexical processing which is

intact in “feral” childrenintact in “feral” children So may not have tested right part of So may not have tested right part of

language; e.g. phonology or language; e.g. phonology or morphosyntax morphosyntax

A conflict between A conflict between acquisition and brain acquisition and brain imaging?imaging? Acquisition data support differentiated Acquisition data support differentiated

language faculty at all levels of languagelanguage faculty at all levels of language Brain Imaging: Engage same regions for Brain Imaging: Engage same regions for

L1 and L2 regardless of task or age of L1 and L2 regardless of task or age of exposure!exposure!

How can these results be reconciled?How can these results be reconciled?– Macro vs. Micro? I.e. fMRI not precise enough?Macro vs. Micro? I.e. fMRI not precise enough?– Electrophysio: disrupt naming in-vivoElectrophysio: disrupt naming in-vivo

Some stimulation sites disrupt each language Some stimulation sites disrupt each language separatelyseparately