ARE BILINGUALS LIKE TWO MONOLINGUALS IN ONE PERSON? EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH IN SENTENCE PROCESSING Eva M. Fernández [email protected]Queens College & Graduate Center ▪ CUNY CUNY Academy ▪ Junior Faculty Series November 25 ▪ Rosenthal Library, Room 230 ▪ Queens College
44
Embed
ARE BILINGUALS LIKE TWO MONOLINGUALS IN ONE PERSON? EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH IN SENTENCE PROCESSING
ARE BILINGUALS LIKE TWO MONOLINGUALS IN ONE PERSON? EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH IN SENTENCE PROCESSING. Eva M. Fern ández [email protected] Queens College & Graduate Center ▪ CUNY CUNY Academy ▪ Junior Faculty Series November 25 ▪ Rosenthal Library, Room 230 ▪ Queens College. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ARE BILINGUALS LIKE TWO MONOLINGUALS IN ONE PERSON?
CUNY Academy ▪ Junior Faculty SeriesNovember 25 ▪ Rosenthal Library, Room 230 ▪ Queens College
COLLABORATION & SUPPORT
Dianne Bradley & Janet Fodor CUNY Graduate Center
Elaine KleinQueens College & Graduate Center, CUNY
Javier Sainz & Lola Oria-MerinoUniversidad Complutense de Madrid
RISLUS: Research Institute for the Study of Language in an Urban Society
CUNY Graduate Center
BILINGUAL PROCESSING
How do bilinguals process their two languages?
using strategies similar to those of monolinguals? with similar timing to that of monolinguals? with similar accuracy when the task involves it? with both written and acoustic stimuli?
the maid (N1) was on the balcony! the actress (N2) was on the balcony!
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
SUBJECTS monolingual & bilingual
MATERIALS English & Spanish
TASKS speeded “on-line” task (early processing) &
unspeeded “off-line” task (later processing)
SUBJECTS
Monolingual Speakers of…
American English
(USENG)
Castillian Spanish(CSPA)
N = 64 N = 64
Bilingual Speakers (from NYC)…
Dominant in English (EDOM)
Dominant in Spanish (SDOM)
N = 40 N = 40
Self-Rated Proficiencydifference Eng – Spa,
listening/speaking reading/writing
– 0.75– 1.15
+ 0.72+ 0.77
The journalist interviewed the coach of the gymnast…
… the coach of the gymnasts that was …
… the coaches of the gymnast that was …
… the coach of the gymnast that was …
MATERIALS
Ambiguous, questionnaire:
Disambiguated, self-paced reading:
Matrix with N of/de N in post-verbal position:
Ambiguous, questionnaire:
Disambiguated, self-paced reading:
Matrix with N of/de N in post-verbal position:El periodista entrevistó al entrenador del gimnasta…
… el entrenador de los gimnastas que estaba ...
… los entrenadores del gimnasta que estaba …
… el entrenador del gimnasta que estaba …
MATERIALS
SELF-PACED READING TASK
EARLY PROCESSING Read DISAMBIGUATED sentences
presented in 2 frames followed by comprehension questions INDIRECT measure of preferences which is faster, a forced low or a forced high
attachment?
… the coaches of the gymnast / that was …
… the coach of the gymnasts / that was …
The journalist interviewed the coach of the gymnaststhat was signing autographs during the competition.
forced high
forced low
Was the coach signing autographs during the competition?
QUESTIONNAIRE TASK
LATER PROCESSING Read AMBIGUOUS sentences
typed on one line followed by question about the attachment DIRECT measure of preferences which is chosen more frequently,
N2 or N1?
The journalist interviewed the coach of the gymnast that was sick.
Who was sick? the coach the gymnast
The dog bit the mailman and barked at the cat.
Who bit the mailman? the dog the cat
… the coach of the gymnasts
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
USENG CSPA
ON-LINE READING TIMES: MONOLINGUALS
that was signing autographs during the competition.FRAME 2FRAME 1The journalist interviewed the coaches of the
gymnast
… the coaches of the gymnast
low attachmentpreference:low faster
high attachmentpreference: high faster
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
USENG CSPA
ON-LINE READING TIMES: MONOLINGUALS
main effect of Site:F1 (1,72) = 7.77, p < .01F2 (1,20) = 6.15, p < .05
Language Site n/s
25
50
75
USENG CSPA
OFF-LINE PREFERENCES:MONOLINGUALS
… the coach of the gymnast that was signing autographs…
Who was signing autographs? the coach the gymnastthe coach the gymnast
low attachmentpreference
high attachmentpreference
25
50
75
USENG CSPA
OFF-LINE PREFERENCES:MONOLINGUALS
main effect of Language:F1 (1,44) = 5.48, p < .025
F2 (1,10) = 56.05, p < .001
ON-LINE READING TIMES:BILINGUALS
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
ENG SPA
EDOM SDOM
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
ENG SPA
EDOM SDOM
main effect of Site n/s:F1, F2 < 1
Site Language n/sSite Dominance n/s
Site Dominance Language n/s
MONOLINGUALS
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
USENG CSPA
ON-LINE READING TIMES:MONOLINGUALS & BILINGUALS
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
English Materials
Spanish Materials
Rel
ativ
e C
laus
e, O
vera
ll R
Ts
(mse
c)
USENG & CSPA EDOM SDOM
SUBJECTS
Monolingual Speakers of…
American English
(USENG)
Castillian Spanish(CSPA)
N = 64 N = 64
Bilingual Speakers (from NYC)…
Dominant in English (EDOM)
Dominant in Spanish (SDOM)
N = 40 N = 40
Self-Rated Proficiencydifference Eng – Spa,
listening/speaking reading/writing
– 0.75– 1.15
+ 0.72+ 0.77
25
50
75
ENG SPA
EDOM SDOM
25
50
75
ENG SPA
EDOM SDOM
OFF-LINE PREFERENCES: BILINGUALS
MONOLINGUALS
25
50
75
USENG CSPA
Dominance Language n/s
main effect of Dominance:F1 (1,40) = 9.04, p < .005
F2 (1,20) = 59.36, p < .001
EARLY PROCESSING Low attachment in English and Spanish monolinguals
Bilinguals slower than monolinguals
No attachment preferences in English/Spanish bilinguals
LATER PROCESSING Differences in monolingual English (low) and Spanish
(high)
Language independent processing in bilinguals
Strategies associated with those of monolinguals in the bilinguals’ dominant language
BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING:1 + 1 = 1
Do bilinguals process input as if they were monolinguals of each of their languages?
NO
BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING
BILINGUALS…
HIGH ATTACHMENT LOW ATTACHMENT
Babble babble in either language N1 P N2 RC… HIGH if SDOM
Babble babble in either language N1 P N2 RC… LOW if EDOM
LANGUAGE DEPENDENT PROCESSING:depending on the language of the stimulus?X X X X
LANGUAGE INDEPENDENT PROCESSING:same strategies, no matter the language;
type of strategy based on language dominance
HIGH ATTACHMENTif Spanish-dominant
LOW ATTACHMENTif English-dominant
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CONVERGING EVIDENCE?
Brazilian Portuguese & English bilinguals
off-line questionnaire BP L1 or EN L1
BP L1 bilinguals: high in both languages EN L1 bilinguals: low in both languages
(Maia & Maia, 2001)
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CONVERGING EVIDENCE?
Spanish & English bilinguals
off-line questionnaire early acquirers of Lx & Ly;
late acquirers of EN L2 or SP L2
early acquirers: no preference late acquirers:
• EN L2: low in EN, high in SP• SP L2: low in EN & SP
(Dussias, 2001)
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CONVERGING EVIDENCE?
Spanish & English bilinguals
on-line self-paced reading, materials only in SP early acquirers of Lx & Ly;
late acquirers of EN L2 or SP L2
early acquirers: no preference late acquirers:
• EN L2: high in SP• SP L2: trend to high in SP
(Dussias, 2001)
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CONVERGING EVIDENCE?
speakers of Greek as L2
on-line self-paced reading, materials only in GK late acquirers of GK, L1 speakers of SP, GE, RU
all L2 learner groups: no preference
(Papadopoulou, 2002)
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Relative Clause Attachment Preferences Similarity between English and Spanish in
early processing Departure from low attachment preference in
later phases of processing
Bilingual sentence processing Evidence of language-independent strategy
use Strategies resemble those of monolingual
speakers of a bilingual’s dominant language
REMAINING PROBLEMS
insensitive “on-line” task did we miss the early low attachment preference in the bilinguals? or do bilinguals not engage in structurally-based processing strategies?
a mystery, what drives cross-linguistic differences grammar? (unlikely, given these results) person-based variable: lexical frequencies? tuning? prosody?
circumstantial idiosyncrasies of bilinguals corroborate with evidence from other bilingual populations
focus on language dominance: other variables? manner and age of acquisition frequency of language use literacy, primary language of education etc.