SHARED VERSUS SEPARATE SYNTACTICAL REPRESENTATION WITHIN THE BILINGUAL BRAIN

Global Impact Factor - 0.541 ISSN 2320-6381

InternationalJournal of

PsychosocialResearch

A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL

Prof. Cary L. CooperChief Adviser

Prof. Chandraiah KottaEditor - In-Chief

Prof. G. Babu RaoCo-Editor

USHASREE INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONSTIRUPATI

Volume - III No.2 Dec-2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOCIAL RESEARCHA PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL

ISSN : 2320-6381

"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOCIAL RESEARCH "IJPSR" is a multidisciplinary peer

reviewed journal that will be published bi-annually (July / December) and is dedicated to increasing the

depth in research to enrich knowledge of the subject. Send your Research Papers through

e-mail: [email protected]. On or before, 30th March, 30 September every year For all

querries, please feel free to contact: Dr. K.Chandraiah, Editor-In-Chief, Mob: +91 9494403127

Your article should satisfy the norms and standards:Original and unpublished articles in basic and applied research, case studies, critical reviews, surveys,

opinions, commentaries and essays, The contribution should be 8 to 10 pages in A4 size paper and the

text shall be in font size of 12 in Times New Roman.

Subscription:Subscribe your article with printing charges of Rs. 1000/- INR for Main Author and Rs. 1200/- INR for

more than one , Authors S 50 for Foreign Subscribers Excluding Postage Charges. ! Institutional

subscription i.e. Rs. 1500/- per annum and for Rs. 4000/- 3 years

Advertisement: Rs. 5000/- per page and Rs. 2500/- per half page.

Note: Headers, Footers, Page Numbers, Animations and Cross References should not be added

Call for Papers: I would like to invite all academicians and researchers from psychology and Social

sciences disciplines to contribute research papers and articles for "IJPSR"www.ijpsr.net

You can submit your articles in multi-disciplinary areas like:-Psychology, Special Education, Cognitive and Linguistics, Philosophy and, Sociology, Education,

Psychiatry and Medicine, Nursing, Social Work, Research Methodology, Management,

Marketing ,Computer Science.

Absence of father figure and its repercussion on Children of Devadasis

Shwetha.T.S and Manjula. M.Y

Impact of Social Network on Emotional Maturity among AdolescentsShilpa.S and Srimathi.N.L

Mental Health among High School Tribal StudentsP.Ramachandraiah, K. Chandraiah

The Relevance of Yoga in Modem Life - A StudyK. Jayaramaiah and M. Chandraiah

Shared versus Separate Syntactical Representation within the BilingualBrain

Mishra Khushboo Ashokkumar and Asthana H. S.'The road from gender biases to leadership positions'(exploratory study on gender biases as a barrier for leadership positions forfemale employees)

Swati SharmaConflating Truth - Claims and Inter - Cultural Dialogue

G.C Narasimhulu and M.ChandraiahDietary Intervention for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder:A Systematic Review

Jagdish Buwade and Sh.A.D.Paswan

SHARED VERSUS SEPARATE SYNTACTICAL REPRESENTATION WITHIN THEBILINGUAL BRAIN

Syntactical priming refers to the repeated use of the syntactic structure which one has recentlyencountered. It is not only evident in natural discourse but has been proved in various experimental studies.This article presents an overview the researches with respect to the representation of the two languageswithin the bilingual brain. Literature indicates two different accounts with respect to the syntactic represen-tation in the bilingual brain, viz., Shared-syntax account and separate-syntax account. The shared-syntaxaccount proposes that syntactical structures are stored as a single representation within the brain. On theother hand, the separate-syntax account proposes that syntactical representations are stored separately. Therehave been a number of studies which favour the shared syntax account while few other studies have sup-ported that the syntactical representation which are common across languages are stored together but fewother unique representations are also stored separately. On the basis of the review we can say that furtherresearcher with languages which differ in various aspect like phonological, scripts, word order, etc must beconducted.

In the present world a very large propor-tion of the world's population is speaking two (ormore) languages. Monolingual population have beenthe focus of study in psychology since long. But re-cently researchers have diverted their attention to-wards the analysis of the language processing inbilinguals. Language is primarily governed by theleft hemisphere and prominently the frontal lobe.Broca's area and Werniche's area along with its cir-cuit are considered essential for language compre-hension and production. It's easy to explain languageprocessing amongst the monolingual because thereis only one language; its articulation and its gram-mar. But the scenario becomes complicated whenthere are two or more languages are involved. Anessential question which comes into the mind is that,whether the two languages have their separate rep-resentations within the bilingual brain or whetherthey share the representation.

Most research has considered the questionof representation of words or concepts (Kroll &Stewart, 1994; Dijkstra, Van Heuven, & Grainger,1998; Van Hell & De Groot, 1998) or phonologicalrepresentation (Colome, 2001; Dijkstra, & VanHeuven, 2002). These studies report that at leastsome information is shared between languages. Butlanguage interaction does not involve mere utter-ance of words. It involves presentation of thesewords in some structured fonn, called as syntax.

Thus, the researchers have shifted their attentiontowards the study of representation of syntax withinthe bilingual mental world. Syntax is the study ofthe principles and rules for constructing phrases andsentences in languages. It specifies relations betweenwords in a sentence. Language without grammar willbecome a cluster of words with no meaning. Lin-guistic theorists believe in the concept of 'UniversalGrammar' from which all grammars are constructed(Chomsky, 1981). These researchers postulate thatgrammatical constructions may vary but the basicgrammar is constant across various languages. Thus,it interesting to investigate how such similaritiesaffect syntactic representation: Is the syntacticalstructure stored separately or there is an overlap. Thepresent article is a review of some major studies inthis scenario.

Models of Syntactic Representation:

Syntactic representation within the brain isbetter explained in terms of two opposing modelsof language processing: the modular view and theinteractive view. According to the modular or sepa-rate representation account, both the languages ofthe proficient bilinguals are processed independentof each other (Kroll & Stewart, 1994). According tothe latter view, i.e., interactive or shared representa-tion account, there is huge amount of interaction inthe bilingual language processing (Van Heuven,Dijkstra, & Grainer, 1998). With respect to syntac-tical representation in bilinguals, shared representa-tion account proposes that the syntactical represen-

'Research Scholar; 2 rofessor, Cognitive Science Laboratory, Department of Psychology, BHU, Varanasi. email ID:[email protected],

tations are shared amongst the various languages. Itmeans that syntactic blueprints are constant cross-linguistically. Grammatical rules that are same indifferent languages are represented once. Thus, theshared representation account explains how the pro-cessing redundancies in language production andcomprehension are reduced. While, separate repre-sentation account claims that the syntactic represen-tations and mechanisms for each language are keptstrictly separated. This view proposes that there arevast differences between the syntactical structuresof the bilingual's two languages and it would be moreconvenient for him to keep the grammatical frameof each language separate, in order to avoid cogni-tive effort.

A huge amount of literature supports theshared representation account but few other researchworks can also be found which supports the sepa-rate representation account to some extent. Studieson syntactic priming paradigm strongly suggest thatbilinguals can store integrated representation of con-struction that is similar in both languages(Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, 2004). How-ever, they may even store two separate representa-tions of constructions that involve different wordorders (Loebell & Bock, 2003).

Cross-Linguistic Syntactic Priming

In the field of cognitive science, 'priming'is described in terms of its facilitating effect thatoccurs after the repetition of two related stimuli oras the likelihood to reuse a certain pattern which theindividual has just encountered. For example, theword 'pen' is read faster when it is preceded by thesame word or by the semantically related word 'pa-per' than when it is preceded by an unrelated wordlike 'boy' (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971). It is animplicit memory effect in which exposure to stimuliinfluences a response to a later stimulus. Studiesexamining the integration and extent of overlap be-tween languages chiefly make use of 'priming'method. Syntactic priming is witnessed when lan-guage users apply the same or a similar structuralorganisation to sentences that they have recentlyproduced or comprehended. Psychologists have triedto explain this thing in a number of ways. One pos-sibility says that the speakers do it on a purpose.People sometimes repeat themselves or others in-tentionally, and such repetitions may serve stylistic,social, and rhetorical purposes. At the same timesome repetitions appears to be effortless and unin-tentional. The study of sentence production presentsus with an interesting paradox of language system.People may find it difficult to immediately recallmore than six to seven words but they can easily

recall a long structure which may comprise of four-teen to fifteen words. Although speakers have thelinguistic competence to produce and comprehendan unlimited number of different sentences, they tendto repeat the same syntactic structures that they haverecently encountered (Bernolet, Hartsuiker &Pickering, 2007).

The earliest experimental observationalevidence of syntactic priming was found in the studyby Levelt & Kelter (1982). They telephoned theshopkeepers and asked them either "What time doesyour shop close?" or "At what time does your shopclose?" They found that, in most cases the shopkeep-ers' answers reflected the syntactical form in whichthe question was asked ("Five o'clock 1" or "At fiveo'clock"). But this study required certain method-ological refinements. Thus Bock (1986) tried to in-vestigate the phenomenon empirically. Syntactic rep-resentations can be investigated using syntactic prim-ing experiments in which participants describe pic-tures of objects or events which they encounter al-most daily (Bock, 1986) or required to completesentences (Corley & Scheepers, 2002). The picturesused in the priming experiments make use of ob-jects or contexts which can be conceptualised usingat least more than two grammatical frameworks. Forexample, when two syntactic alternatives withroughly the same meaning are available to describepicture or complete a sentence, people are inclinedto use the structure they have just read or heard as aprime. (Bock & Loebell, 1990). Syntactic primingoccurs not only during sentence production but alsoduring comprehension: the repetition of sentencesfacilitates the comprehension of sentences (Arai, VanGompel & Scheepers, 2007; Branigen, Pickering&McLean, 2005; Noppeney & Price, 2004).

Evidences for cross-linguistic syntactic overlap:

Bock's study gave a kick start to many re-searches in syntactic priming with different tasks(Pickering & Branigan, 1998; Potter & Lombardi,1998; Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland, 2000), dif-ferent form of grammatical constructions(Hartsuiker, Kolk, & Huiskamp, 1999; Hartsuiker& Westenberg, 2000; Ferreira, 2003; Scheepers,2003), different languages (Hartsuiker & Kolk,1998b), different age groups (Brooks & Tomasello,1999), and also amongst aphasic patients (Hartsuiker& Kolk, 1998a). Many other researchers tried to in-vestigate the question of the extent of syntactic over-lap across different languages. The following tabledepicts the summary of the major studies and theirfindings.

Authors(Year)

Loebell andBock (2003)

Meijer andFox Tree(2003)

Hartsu iker,Pickering,

andVeltkamp

(2004)

Desmet andDeclercq(2006)

Bernolet,Hartsuiker &

Pickering(2007)

SchoonbaertHartsuiker, &

Pickering,(2007)

Native Gennanspeakers withhigh fluency in

English

Balanced earlybilinguals inSpanish and

English

Native Spanishspeakers with

high tomoderate

proficiency inEnglish

Dutch nativespeakers with

highproficiency in

English

Dutch andGerman

(Dutch andGennanhavesame word

order)

Dutch andEnglish

(Dutch andEnglish havedifferent word

order)

Dutch andEnglish.

Task used:The participant had to first repeat the primedsentence in a particular order and thendescribing a pictured event. The picturedevents were designed to be thematicallyunrelated to the priming sentences and to beunlikely to elicit the same content words as thepriming sentences. The events could, however,be naturally described in the primed structureor the alternative to the primed structure.Syntactic structures used:I) Ditransitive double object (DO) primestructure or an alternative prime structure(PO).2) Active and passive structureTask used:The participants first read a Spanish DO or POtarget sentence, which was followed by anEnglish DO or PO prime sentence; next theywere asked to recall the target sentence.Syntactic structures used:Ditransitive double object (DO) primestructure or an alternative prime structure(PO).Task used:The confederate described a picture to theparticipant in Spanish, using either the activeor the passive voice in the description, andthen the participant described another pictureto the confederate in English.Syntactic structures used:Acti ve and passive sentences.Task Used:Sentence completion.Syntactic structures used:Relative clause attachments.

Task Used:The confederate described the picture using aparticular syntactic structure which wasfollowed by the participant descnbing thepicture presented to him/her.Syntactic structures used:RelativeclausesTask Used:The confederate described the picture using aparticular syntactic structure which wasfollowed by the participant descnbing thepicture presented to him/her.Syntactic structures used:Relative clausesTask Used:The confederate described the picture using aparticular syntactic structure which wasfollowed by the participant descnbing thepicture presented to him/her.Syntactic structures used:Datives

I) Between-languagepriming was found forDitransitiveconstructions, althoughthe effect wassignificant only forDO targets.2) No priming wasfound between Englishand GenTIan activesand passives.

Recall was higherwhen the prime andthe target sentence hadthe same structure thanwhen they differed.

Participants producedmore English passivesfollowing Spanishpassives thanfollowing Spanishactive sentences.

Cross-linguisticpriming was found forrelative clauseattachments fromDutch to English,despite the word orderdifferences.Priming effect wasfound

Priming effect was notfound

Structural primingeffect was foundacross languages.Priming was enhancedwhen the verb repeatedbetween prime andtargets in Ll (Dutch)and L2 (Enlgish).

Shared vIsSeparate

representa tio n

Shared as wellas Separate(Word orderdifferences inEnglish and

Getmanpassives)

Shared as wellas Separate

Unbalanced Task Used: Priming effect wasbil inguals with Sentence recall. found despite Korean

Shin and native language Syntactic structures used: and English beingChristianson as Korean and Datives SOY and SVO order Shared

(2009) English as languagessecond

languageNative Swedish Task Used: Priming was found in

Kantola & speakers with Written sentence completion task. Ditransitivevan Gompel high Syntactic structures used: constructions. Shared

(2011) proficiency in Ditransitive DO/POEnglish structures

Dutch native Task Used: Less proficientspeakers with The confederate descnbed a picture to bilinguals showed

English as their the participant in Dutch (Actually he virtually no priming. Shared as wellsecond simply read the words presented on the Priming effects as separate

language. computer screen and pretended as if he increased for more (Shared in theBemolet, Second was describing the picture), and then the proficient bilinguals. context of highly

Hartsuiker & language participant described another picture to proficientPickering proficiency was the confederate in English. bilinguals and

(2013) further divided Syntactic structures used: separate in theinto high and Genitive case was used context oflowlow and two proficientexperiments bilinguals)

wereconducted.

The present article primarily focussed to-wards getting an overview of the researches on thequestion of syntactic overlap across languages. Lan-guages differ in various aspects, starting from ori-gin of the language to many other factors like thescript used, their articulation and grammatical con-structions and so on. When we are talking of therepresentation of such vast variety of things withinthe brain the questions of how the languages are rep-resented becomes more profound. The two accountsof bilingual language representation, viz., Sharedsyntactical account and separate syntactical accountprovide us with an insight into the concerned issue.Various studies have supported that syntactical rep-resentation is shared (Meijer and Fox Tree, 2003;Desmet and Declercq, 2006; Bemolet, Hartsuiker& Pickering, 2007; Schoonbaert Hartsuiker, &Pickering, 2007; Shin and Christianson, 2009;Kantola & van Gompel, 2011) while many other stud-ies have found results which favour separate syntac-tical account (Bemolet, Hartsuiker & Pickering,2007). There are few more studies which report thatsyntactical representation is both shared as well asseparate (Loebell and Bock, 2003; Hartsuiker,Pickering, and Veltkamp, 2004; Bemolet; Hartsuiker& Pickering, 2013).

But there are several considerations whichare required to be taken into account while makingand deductions from the earlier studies. Firstly, thestudies conducted differed with respect to the be-tween-language similarity. Some language had much

similarity (like Dutch and English in the studies byDesmet and Declercq; 2006; Bernolet, Hartsuiker& Pickering, 2007; Schoonbaert Hartsuiker, &Pickering, 2007; Bernolet, Hartsuiker & Pickering,2013) while some other languages differed to verylarge extent (For example, Korean and English inthe study by Shin and Christianson, 2009). Thus, itmay be that the language similarity may have con-founded the results.

Syntactic structure used also differed acrossmost of the studies. Some have used ditransitivestructure, while others have made use of dativeswhereas few others have made use of genitives orrelative clauses. Even it becomes difficult to com-pare results across each other because the task em-ployed by the researchers differs. Some researchershave made use of picture description, while othershave made use of sentence recall, sentence comple-tion and so on. Thus it becomes difficult to comparethe results with each other.

Therefore it becomes necessary that thestudies thoroughly revised in terms of bringing somemethodological changes; changing the constructions;bringing alterations in the tasks used; validating theresults in the context of other languages; etc. Fur-thermore, we did not investigate how bilinguals dealwith syntactic structures that cannot be shared be-tween languages.

References

Arai, M., Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C.(2007). Priming ditransitive structures incomprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54,218-250.

Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J.(2007). Shared syntactic representations inbilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 33 (5),931-949.

Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J.(2013). From language-specific to sharedsyntactic representations: The influence ofsecond language proficiency on syntacticsharing in bilinguals. Cognition, 127,287-306.

Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in languageproduction. Cognitive Psychology, 18 (3),355-387.

Bock, J. K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing Sen-tences. Cognition, 35, 1-39.

Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F.(2005). Priming prepositional-phrase at-tachment during language comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-ing, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 468-481.

Branigen, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A.(2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue.Cognition, 75, 13-25.

Brooks, P., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Young chil-dren learn to produce passives with nonceverbs. Developmental Psychology, 35, 29-44.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government andbinding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.

Colome, A. (200 I). Lexical activation in bilinguals'speech production: Language-specific orlanguage independent? Journal of Memoryand Language, 45, 721-736.

Corley, M., & Scheepers, C. (2002). Syntactic prim-ing in English sentence production: cat-egorical and latency evidence from aninternet-based study. Psychonomic Bulle-tin & Review, 9, 126-131.

Desmet, T., & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-linguis-tic priming of syntactic hierarchical con-figuration information. Journal of Memoryand Language, 54,610-632.

Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. (2002). The archi-tecture of the bilingual word recognitionsystem: from identification to decision. Bi-lingualism: Language and Cognition, 5,175-197.

Dijkstra, T., Van Heuvan, w., & Grainger, l (1998).Simulating cross-language competition withthe Bilingual Interactive Activation model.Psychologica Belgica, 38,177-196.

Ferreira, V. S. (2003). The persistence of optionalcomplementizer production: Why saying"that" is not saying "that" at all. Journal of

Memory and Language, 35, 724-755.Hartsuiker, R. l, & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998a). Syntac-

tic Facilitation in agrammatic sentence pro-duction. Brain and Language, 62, 221-254.

Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998b). Syntac-tic persistence in Dutch. Language andSpeech, 41, 143-184.

Hartsuiker, R. J., & Westenberg, C. (2000). Wordorder priming in written and spoken sen-tence production. Cognition, 75, B27-B39.

Hartsuiker, R. J., Kolk, H. H. J., & Huiskamp, P.(1999). Priming word order in sentence pro-duction. Quarterly Journal of Experimen-tal Psychology: Human Experimental Psy-chology, 52 (A), 129-147.

Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E.(2004). Is syntax separate or shared betweenlanguages? Psychological Science, 15,409-414.

Kantola, L., van Gompel, R. P. (20 II). Between-and within-language priming is the same:evidence for shared bilingual syntactic rep-resentations. Memory and cognition, 39 (2),276-290.

Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interfer-ence in translation and picture naming: Evi-dence for asymmetric connections betweenbilingual memory representations. Journalof Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.

Levelt, W. l M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface formand memory in question answering. Cog-nitive Psychology, 14, 78-106.

Loebell, H., & Bock, K. (2003). Structural primingacross languages. Linguistics, 41 (5), 791-824.

Meijer, P. J. A., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2003). Buildingsyntactic structures in speaking: A bilingualexploration. Experimental Psychology, 50(3),184-195.

Meyer, D. c., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Fa-cilitation in recognizing pairs of words:Evidence of dependence between retrievaloperations. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology, 90, 227-234.

Noppeney, D., & Price, C. J. (2004). An Fmri studyof syntactic adaption. Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience, 16, 702-713.

Pickering, M. l, & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The rep-resentation of verbs: Evidence from syntac-tic priming in language production. Jour-nal of Memory and Language, 39, 633-651.

Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic prim-ing in immediate recall of sentences. Jour-nal or Memory and Language, 46, 265-282.

Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relativeclause attachments: Persistence of structuralconfiguration in sentence production. Cog-nition, 89, 179-205.

Schoonbaert, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M.J. (2007). The representation oflexical andsyntactic information in bilinguals: Evi-dence from syntactic priming. Journal ofMemory and Language, 56 (2), 153-171.

Shin, J. -A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntacticprocessing in Korean-English bilingual pro-duction: Evidence from cross-linguistic

structural priming. Cognition, 112 (1), 175-180.

Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. B. (l998). Con-ceptual representation in bilingual memory:Effects of concreteness and cognate statusin word association. Bilingualism: Lan-guage and Cognition, 1, 193-211.

Van Heuvan, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J.(1998). Orthographic neighbourhood ef-fects in bilingual word recognition. Jour-nal of Memory and Language, 39, 458-483.