Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick

_____________________________________

Psycholinguistics

Universität des SaarlandesDept. 4.3: English Linguistics

SS 2009

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 necessarily

lateralized separately

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

• 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 thesituation as follows:

L1 L2

conceptual level single system

semantics x -- y

syntax x -- y

morphology x -- y

lexis x -- y

phonology x -- y

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 systemsemantics x -- ysyntax x -- y morphology x -- y lexis x -- y phonology x -- y

Of course, some languages may naturally sharestructures at certain levels:

English-German 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

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)

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 Weinreich’s “coordinate bilingual”)

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.

But, as in Weinreich, there’s 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

It’s probably necessary to complicate the third model

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

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

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, frequencyof contact etcbut word/phrase from suppressed system may intrude, especially during word searchthere may be differences in processing due to acquisition history, strategies etc

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.

meaning and real-world expectations play a moreimportant 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.

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.

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

8.1 Comprehension of words

Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP):

separate, simultaneous and parallel processes work to identify words

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

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

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

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‘

8.2 Comprehension of sentences

Chomsky proposed Generative Transformational

Grammar (TG) as a model of Competence,

suggesting that psycholinguists should figure out how

Performance could be related to his model

Psycholinguists began to test for transformational

complexity

Sentences involving more transformations like

PASSIVE, NEGATION, QUESTION FORMATION etc

should be harder to comprehend than sentences

involving fewer transformations

processing time should increase for sentences a-e:

a. Judy called the boy.

b. Judy didn't call the boy.

c. The boy was called by Judy.

d. The boy was not called by Judy.

e. Wasn't the boy called by Judy?

They found that negatives were harder to process than either passives or questions, even though negation seemed like a simpler transformation

Subjects seemed to have difficulty processing negatives generally.

Consider the difficulty of:

It's not true that Wednesday never comes after a day that isn't Tuesday.

Subjects also processed passives more easily than

actives, if the passives made more sense, e.g.

The struggling swimmer rescued the lifeguard.

The struggling swimmer was rescued

by the lifeguard.

Apparently, semantics was more important than

derivational complexity as predicted by TG analysis

Garden Pathing is most obvious when we have to backtrack after an unexpected switch, as in sentence a; the addition of this in sentence b, or a comma, as in sentence c, eliminates the problem

a. Since Jay always jogs a mile seems like a short distance to him

b. Since Jay always jogs a mile this seems like a short distance to him

c. Since Jay always jogs, a mile seems like a short distance to him

Garden pathing works both syntactically and semantically.

We follow expectations about constructions and meaning.

Garden pathing makes it so difficult to understand sentences which seem complete and semantically simple, e.g.

The horse raced past the barn fell.

Compare: The horse that was raced past the barn fell.

Tests revealed other syntactic processing differences.

Right-branching constructions are easy to process:

This is the cat that chased the rat that stole the cheese that lay in the cupboard.

Here each construction is closed before the next is added.

But left-branching constructions are difficult.

The rat the cat chased stole the cheese.

Left-branching requires that the listener keep the first

construction open (in short-term memory) while

processing the second. Adding a third makes

processing impossible because of the demands it

places on short-term memory.

The cheese the rat the cat chased stole lay

in the cupboard.

8.3 Comprehension of metaphor

metaphors consist of three parts: tenor, vehicle, ground

tenor vehiclebillboards are warts on the landscape

ground (tertium comparationis) = 'ugly protrusions on some surface'

Ortony (1975) argues that we comprehend metaphorsin the same way we comprehend explicit comparisons or similes like:

billboards are like warts on the landscape

in both cases, we must find the appropriate ground

even in literal comparisons such as: dogs are like cats

we must discover a common semantic property like 'pet' as the ground of the comparison

we need only certain aspects of the word meanings

In the metaphors below, different semantic aspects of butcher are dominant:

the pianist is a butcherthe surgeon is a butcher

This suggests that we always access just as muchsemantic content from the mental lexicon as we need to comprehend the sentence at hand, not complete encyclopedic information

Given a metaphoric statement like: skyscrapers are the giraffes of a city

we identify a ground like 'tall compared to surroundings' as part of comprehension process. And though the ground is unstated, tests show that it provides as good a cue for recall as the tenor or vehicle.

Metaphors organize our understanding of the tenor; reversing tenor and vehicle usually confuses the relation, as in:

warts are billboards on the body

tests show that metaphors require longer to comprehend only in isolation in appropriate contexts, metaphors require no longer than literal statements, as in:

Billboards are really offensive to look at.They mess up the surrounding area.Billboards are like warts on the landscape

Within a single sentence, prior context (as in A below) is more effective than subsequent context (as in B) in triggering metaphoric interpretation:

A. The night was filled with drops of molten silverB. Drops of molten silver filled the night.

Apparently, understanding metaphors in context is no different from regular comprehension processes

Familiarity is also a factor in metaphor comprehension

Test subjects respond fastest to familiar metaphors,

e.g. Joe's the top cat around here

Telecommunications are further shrinking the globe

If the vehicle of the metaphor is unfamiliar or has no

single salient property, comparison is difficult and

comprehension will be slow,

e.g. Judy's a real platypus at work

Bob's a regular isotope for politics

Metaphor may even be necessary and go unnoticed when language lacks any other word, e.g.

dead metaphor: face of a clockmoribund metaphor: cut into line

cf. knife through the line

Poetic metaphor involves anomaly, and requires extra processing time

I have measured out my life with coffee spoons

but many metaphors aren't anomalous, e.g. metaphoric proverbs may be both literally true and consistent:

The early bird catches the worm

Like other metaphors, metaphorical proverbs seem to require no special processing in appropriate discourse contexts

8.5 Comprehending sentences

Given-New Contract (Clark & Clark 1977):

Listeners expect information in a regular pattern. Coherent texts generally exhibit a characteristic

information flow:

• begin each utterance with given information • then move on to new information

e.g. The ballerina captivated a musician duringher performance. The one who the ballerina captivated was

the trombonist.

(with the ballerina as given and the rest of the first sentence as new)

In the second sentence, all the information is given, except the fact that the musician was a trombonist. Hearing the first sentence reduces processing time for the second.

If the second sentence is altered as below, listeners

are confused and processing times increase.

The ballerina captivated a musician during her

performance.

The one who captivated the trombonist was the ballerina.