to Open PDF - Yu Ming Charter School

Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Attitudes and aptitudes:
Myths, facts, and controversies
about the bilingual mind
Devyani Sharma
d.sharma@qmul.ac.uk
Queen Mary, University of London
Lecture 2
LSA 201, Berkeley
29 July 2009
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Key methodologies
(summary from last lecture)
Experimental → naturalistic
�
(Gass & Mackey 2007, Grosjean 2008)
Prompted responses
reaction time, sentence interpretation, acceptability judgements,
magnitude estimation, word association, priming, lexical decision,
cross-modal priming, eye movement, moving window, stroop test
�
Prompted production
elicited imitation, picture description, story telling, story completion,
sentence combining, map tasks, spot-the-difference
�
Naturalistic data
role play, diary studies, narratives, semi-structured interviews, ethnography
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Overview Early Contemporary
Today
Attitudes vs. evidence
�
Attitudes
�
Evidence of advantages (verbal, non-verbal)
�
Evidence of disadvantages (verbal)
Explanations and controversies
�
Explanations
�
�
�
�
Neurocognition
Lexical storage
Selective access
The critical age controversy
�
�
Critical age claims and evidence
Interaction of social and individual factors
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Overview Early Contemporary
Early attitudes
Popular beliefs
�
Views summarized in Weinreich (1953):
mental retardation, low intelligence, split national loyalties,
laziness, excessive materialism, stuttering, left-handedness,
brooding, moral deterioration
Consequences
�
Suppression of native language use in schools
�
Early IQ tests aimed to identify “feeble-minded immigrants”
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Overview Early Contemporary
Early attitudes
Linguists
� S. S. Laurie (Cambridge 1890): “If it were possible for a child to live in two
languages at once equally well, so much the worse. His intellectual and spiritual
growth would not thereby be doubled, but halved. Unity of mind and character
would have great difficulty in asserting itself.”
� Jespersen (1922): “It is, of course, an advantage for a child to be familiar with
two languages: but without doubt the advantage may be, and generally is,
purchased too dear. First of all the child in question hardly learns either of the
two languages as perfectly as he would have done if he had limited himself to
one... Secondly, the brain effort required... certainly diminishes the child’s
power of learning other things which might and ought to be learnt.”
� Weinreich (1968): “the ideal bilingual switches from one language to the other
according to the appropriate changes in the speech situation (interlocutors,
topic, etc.), but not in unchanged speech situations, and certainly not within a
single utterance.”
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Overview Early Contemporary
Contemporary attitudes
Attitudes among monolinguals
(see Romaine 1995)
� Letter to the editor Sydney Morning Herald 13/2/81: “Nothing annoys me
more than two or more ‘ethnics’ jabbering away in their native language in the
company of English speaking people, particularly in a work environment. Is it
really too much to ask them to observe simple politeness by refraining from
resorting to their native language in the company of English speaking persons?”
� “Spanglish... consists primarily of English words for modern things, ideas and
activities hung on a sagging Spanish grammatical framework... The truth is,
that’s how high-school dropouts confined to ethnic ghettos talk. Nobody else is
going to find himself talking like this. Spanglish, like Ebonics, will tend to
remain what it already is, a dialect of people who are not educated enough to
master English.” (http://www.us-english.org)
� “Tragically, many immigrants these days refuse to learn English! They never
become productive members of society. They remain stuck in a linguistic and
economic ghetto, many living off welfare and costing working Americans millions
of tax dollars every year.” (http://www.us-english.org)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Overview Early Contemporary
Contemporary attitudes
Attitudes among bilinguals
�
Norwegians on Norwegian migrants in U.S. (Haugen 1977):
“Strictly speaking, it is no language whatever, but a gruesome mixture of
Norwegian and English, and often one does not know whether to take it
humorously or seriously.”
�
Self-report by an English-Punjabi bilingual (Romaine 1995):
“I’m guilty as well in the sense that we speak English more and more and then
what happens is that when you speak your own language you get two or three
English words in each sentence... but I think that’s wrong. I mean, I myself
would like to speak pure Panjabi.”
�
Raising children bilingual:
�
�
Cognitive deficit or burden? → literacy, school performance
Fear of fused languages (NB: de Houwer, Romaine, Sorace, Meisel)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Overview Early Contemporary
Contemporary attitudes
Attitudes among bilinguals
�
(Hill 1993)
Traditional Dyirbal, Young people’s Dyirbal, English:
�
�
�
Older TD speakers accuse young speakers of being ‘half
English’, ‘all mixed up’, ‘wrong’
Some concerned to have children ready for school
Belief that TD is more appropriate for older children (transition
from everyday language to ‘difficult’ heritage, ritual language):
�
�
“we jus’ want them to grow up a bit more, then they know
what we talkin’ about [when we teach them Dyirbal].”
“till he gets older, enough to understand...”
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Overview Early Contemporary
Contemporary attitudes
Researcher ideologies
�
�
Monolingual or ‘fractional’ view of bilinguals
Causes:
�
�
�
(Grosjean 2008)
Linguistics by and for “normal” monolingual speaker-hearer
Influence of popular ideologies of ‘true’ speakers
Effects:
�
�
�
�
‘True’ bIlingual as two monolinguals (vs. complementarity)
Language skills assessment in terms of monolingual standards
Lack of attention to impact of monolingualism!
Separate analysis of each L1 or L2 language (vs. individually
variable continuum of speech mode)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Early claims of disadvantage
Claims of negative effects
�
(see Romaine 1995)
English in home → higher ‘IQ’
(Goodenough 1926):
“this might be considered evidence that the use of a foreign language in
the home is one of the chief factors in producing mental retardation as
measured by intelligence tests. A more probable explanation is that those
nationality groups whose average intellectual ability is inferior do not
readily learn the new language” (Goodenough 1926)
�
Study of Welsh/English communities and avg. IQ
Monolingual English
Bilingual Welsh/English
�
�
�
urban
99
100
(Saer 1924):
rural
96
86
Saer: Urban biling children resolve ‘emotional conflict’ early
Romaine (1995): Urban biling children have Eng contact
before and outside school; rural lack of Eng access (lg of test)
Morrison (1958): Factoring in SES eliminates effect
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Early claims of disadvantage
Claims of negative effects
(contd.)
�
Sp-Eng bilinguals: 54% of reading vocabulary
�
Sp-Eng: reading handicap of 2.7 years
�
Singapore bilinguals less creative
�
Poorer performance in IQ tests and motivation: Irish-Eng,
U.S. It-Eng (Darcy 1946, Jones & Stewart 1951, Macnamara 1966)
(Tireman 1955)
(Kelley 1936)
(Torrance et al. 1970)
Concerns:
�
Sample selection errors
�
Testing concerns
�
Demographics and background
�
Language mode
(e.g. L1 Hokkien, two new school L2s)
(e.g. cultural relativity and lg of IQ tests)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Counter-claims: Overall superiority
Peal & Lambert (1962)
(NB: Ronjat 1913, Leopold 1936, 1949)
�
Minority language prestige (6 Montreal French schools)
�
364 monolingual and ‘true’ bilingual 10-year-olds
�
Matched on SES, sex, age, language, intelligence, attitude
Verbal and non-verbal IQ tests:
�
�
Bilinguals superior on symbol manipulation processes
(Raven
Progressive Matrices)
�
�
Biling/monoling at par on spatial and perceptual processes
Note: Possible bias in selection of bilinguals
(Macnamara 1966)
Longitudinal confirmation of direction of effect
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
(Hakuta & Diaz 1985)
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Counter-claims: Verbal advantage
Arbitrariness of sign
Q1:
A1:
Q2:
A2:
(Ianco-Worrall 1972):
30 Afrikaans, 30 English, 30 English-Afrikaans (Cf. Leopold 1936)
“3 words: cap, can, hat. Which is more like cap, can or hat?”
‘Hat’: younger bilinguals 68%; younger monolinguals 46%
‘Hat’: older bilinguals > 67%; older monolinguals < 60%
“Suppose you were making up names for things, could you then call
a cow ‘dog’ and a dog ‘cow’ ?”
‘Yes’: younger bilinguals 38%; younger monolinguals 8%
‘Yes’: older bilinguals 59%; older monolinguals 38%
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Counter-claims: Verbal advantage
Arbitrariness of sign
(Ben-Zeev 1977):
Piagetian ‘sun-moon’ task (Bialystok 1988: early & late bilingual advantage)
Q1: “You know that in English this is named ‘airplane’. In this game it’s
named ‘turtle’. Can the ‘turtle’ fly? etc.”
A1: ‘Yes’: bilinguals > monolinguals (Hebrew-English)
Q1: “Substitute the word spaghetti for we in sentences.”
A1: ‘Spaghetti are good children’: bilinguals > monolinguals
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Counter-claims: Verbal advantage
Arbitrariness of sign
(Cummins 1978):
Q1: “Suppose you were making up names for things, could you
then call the sun “the moon” and the moon “the sun”?
Justifications of answers:
A1: Empirical justification: ‘The names could be interchanged
because both the sun and the moon shine.’
A2: Rigid conventional justification: ‘They are their right names
so you couldn’t change them.’
A3: Arbitrary assignment: ‘You could change the names because it
doesn’t matter what things are called.’ (bilinguals favoured
this response, particularly with age)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Counter-claims: Verbal advantage
Syntactic/semantic awareness
(Bialystok 1986, 7- and 9-yr-olds):
Q1: “Apples growed on trees.”
A1: Ungrammatical judgement: bilinguals = monolinguals
Q2: “Apples grow on noses.”
A2: Grammatical judgement: bilinguals > monolinguals
Phonological awareness
�
�
�
�
“Which is the odd one out? pat, pan, pal, pet”
“Take away the first sound from cat and put in the first sound from
mop. What is the new word?’
� bilinguals > monolinguals (Davine et al. 1971);
� bilinguals = monolinguals (Bialystok et al. 2000)
Bruck & Genesee (1995): monolinguals – phoneme counting,
bilinguals – syllable counting (language-specific result?)
Relationship to: reading, vocabulary size, script type
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Reconciling early studies
Cummins (1976)
�
Oldest studies:
�
�
�
subtractive (low L1 prestige) cases
poor selection criteria, poor task execution
Early counter-claims:
�
�
additive (equal prestige) cases
careful selection, control, and execution
Hypotheses
�
Developmental interdependence hypothesis: Competence
(& literacy) in L2 is a function of competence in L1
�
Threshold hypothesis: Bilinguals must achieve threshold
levels of bilingual proficiency to avoid detrimental cognitive
effects and potentially allow positive cognitive effects
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Reconciling early studies
Cummins (1976) contd.
Cummins’ levels: semilingual, dominant, additive
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Reconciling early studies
Critiques of Cummins (1976)
(Martin-Jones & Romaine 1986, MacSwan 2000)
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Semilingualism vs. complementarity
Hierarchical treatment of variation = prescriptivism
Flaws in test design
Literacy included as measure of proficiency (so “semilingualism” =
poor performance on academic tests, i.e. “cause” = effect!)
Causation assumed: bilingualism → cognitive development
Bilingual situations treated as measurable, comparable
Danger of unfounded deficit beliefs among teachers
Alternative reconciliation: SES/class; special challenges of
immigrant groups (simultaneous academic + English acq)
“it is not bilingualism in itself which causes cognitive advantages or
disadvantages, but certain social factors [SES, lg prestige, education] that
influence the levels of proficiency the bilingual attains.” (Appel & Muysken 2006)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Recent claims: Non-verbal advantages
�
Hypothesis-formation and problem-solving
�
�
�
Sorting task
�
�
�
�
�
(Kessler & Quinn 1980)
Hypothesis formation in response to scientific phenomena
Bilinguals > monolinguals in quality, complexity of hypotheses
and syntactic complexity
(Zelazo et al. 1996, Bialystok 1999, Bialystok & Martin 2004)
Dimensional change card sort task
Bivalent stimuli (colour, shape); quick switch in sorting task
Bilinguals master task sooner than monolinguals
Theory of mind (Goetz 2003, Bialystok & Senman 2004, Kovács 2009)
Executive control and attention tasks (Carlson & Meltzoff 2008)
�
Conflict tasks: Bilinguals > monolinguals (working memory)
�
Even prelingual 7-month-old ‘bilingual’ babies! (Kovács & Mehler 2009)
�
Delay tasks: Bilinguals = monolinguals (STM)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Example 1: Flanker task
Advantages Disadvantages
(Costa, Hernández and Sebastián-Gallés 2008)
(flanker task activity)
72
A. Costa et al. / Cognition 106 (2008) 59–86
No Cue
720
Double Cue
Center
680
Spatial
RTs (ms)
640
600
560
520
480
Neutral
Cong.
Bilinguals
Incong.
Neutral
Cong.
Incong.
Monolinguals
Fig. 2. Overall RTs (ms) for Monolingual and Bilingual participants in the 12 conditions included in the
experiment.
2.2. Assessing the three attentional
networks Bilingual mind
Devyani Sharma
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Example 2: Simon task
Advantages Disadvantages
(Bialystok et al. 2004)
(simon task activity)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Example 3: Stroop test
BLUE
YELLOW
GREEN
RED
Lower naming latencies for younger and older bilinguals compared
to monolinguals (Bialystok et al. 2008)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Summary of claimed advantages
Verbal
�
awareness of arbitrariness of sign
�
syntactic/semantic awareness
�
phonological awareness
�
perception of linguistic ambiguity
�
analytic processing of verbal input
�
verbal creativity
Non-verbal
�
Analytic flexibility, particularly attention and executive control
�
Ability to attend to new feature and neglect irrelevant data
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Summary of claimed advantages
Further advantages
�
Precocious reading skills
�
Favourable attitudes toward other groups
�
Participation, appreciation, maintenance of different cultures
�
Enhanced family and community relationships
(Pettito & Dunbar 2004)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
(Peal & Lambert 1962)
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Disadvantage
Vocabulary:
�
Peabody vocabulary test scores (monoling 105, biling 95)
�
Bilingual children raised in English-speaking community
Issues:
�
Balanced bilinguals?
�
More specialised vocabulary domains?
�
Language mode (Grosjean 2008)
�
50% vocab (bilingual) = 100% vocab (monolingual)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
0
350
Disadvantage
550
750
950
1150
Naming Latencies (ms)
Panel A: Overall mean picture naming latencies for the Spanish Monolinguals (Group 1), the Spanish–Catalan Bilinguals (Group 2
–Spanish Bilinguals (Group 3), averaged across high-frequency and low-frequency picture names. Error bars represent the standard erro
(Ivanova The
& Costa
2008)
tion of all naming latencies (in percentage) for the three groups of participants.
size of the
interval is 50 ms. Mono – monolinguals (
Spanish–Catalan bilinguals (Group 2); Bil L2 – Catalan–Spanish bilinguals (Group 3).
HF
LF
680
630
580
530
730
Spanish-Catalan Bilinguals
(Gr. 2)
HF
LF
680
630
580
530
1
2
3
4
5
1
Repetition
2
3
4
5
Repetition
Naming Latencies (ms)
Naming Latencies (ms)
Monolinguals (Gr. 1)
730
Naming Latencies (ms)
Naming latencies in L1 and L2
730
Catalan-Spanish Bilinguals
(Gr. 3)
HF
LF
680
630
580
530
1
2
3
4
5
Repetition
Mean picture naming latencies for the Spanish Monolinguals (Group 1), the Spanish–Catalan Bilinguals (Group 2) and the Catala
ls (Group 3) for high-frequency and low-frequency picture names (HF – high frequency; LF – low frequency).
� Spanish picture-naming task: high and low frequency words (equal cognates)
� Latencies:
Sp monolings
Sp-dominant bilings
Catalan-dominant
In the<
first
comparison, thatbilings
between the mono
specially, ‘‘Group
of Participants’’.
Note,<however,
(Group 1) and the Spanish–Catalan bilinguals (G
aution needs�toI.e.
be even
exercised
when bilinguals
interpreting
thean effect
dominant
show
the difference between cognates and non-cognates
of this post-hoc
analysis (especially those of the item
� Compounded
frequency effect
tually identical for the two groups, revealing the ab
s) because of the different samples of cognate (22)
Gollan
et As
al. (2005)
repetition
effect
a cognate
effect (monolinguals: 2 ms; Spanish–Cat
on-cognate �
words
(28).
above, found
we carried
out removed
inguals: 5 ms) (see Fig. 3). Furthermore, the biling
omparisons: between the monolinguals (Group 1)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Disadvantage
Recall in bilinguals and L2 learners
Devyani Sharma
(Gathercole & Thorn 1998)
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Disadvantage
L2 naming vs. L2 switching
(switching task activity)
�
L1 strongly inhibited, longer reactivation time
�
Greater general activation for L2
(Allport et al., 1994)
fMRI evidence (Costa et al. in prep.)
�
Greater general activation for L2 and L3 (disadvantage)
�
Reduced added activity for incongruent tasks in balanced
bilinguals (advantage)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Disadvantage
Early and late bilingual switching
(Costa & Santesteban 2004)
� Learners: switch into L1 harder than switch into L2
� Proficient bilinguals: no added cost of switching into L1
� All: slightly more inhibition of L1 across tasks
� Even switches with weaker L3 of proficient bilinguals symmetric, suggesting
fundamental advantage of balanaced bilinguals (contra Allport et al. 1994)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Disadvantage
Tip of the tongue effects
� “a metal device thrown
overboard for the purpose
of holding a boat in
place”
� jaundice, jury, mane,
bachelor, nostril,
colander, parachute,
dusk, echo, refugee,
safety pin, stethoscope,
funnel, tattoo, germ,
grater, tunnel, hoarse,
honeymoon
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Advantages Disadvantages
Disadvantage
Gollan & Silverberg (2001)
B!CB!D
-&'"#$ &$- "#
# +- '--#> &$8)- )"$)-.
' 65#'"'2-#2
-D-62 2)-
TV
ABCB! D$ E=>>B7 B7? FG7B H$ IG>J4!K4!L
!"#$"%&'$( )*+,"&(-* -. /0/!1 .+2+* /0/! 2+*+
*+)-*(+, '! 2-*, .*+34+$&5 "$&*+'!+,6 7-2+8+*9 (:+
';-4$( -. 8'*"'$&+ +<)='"$+, >5 2-*, .*+34+$&5 2'!
8+*5 !;'== !" # $%&' ( ) $%*6 ?+)'*'(+ *+#*+!!"-$! 2"(:
(:+ >"="$#4'= ,'(' -$=5 !" # $%+' ( # $%"9 '$, (:+
;-$-="$#4'= ,'(' -$=5 !" # $%, -.),/ !4##+!(+, (:'(
2-*, .*+34+$&5 2'! ;-*+ *->4!( '! ' )*+,"&(-* -.
/0/! ';-$# >"="$#4'=!6 /:+ "$(+*'&("-$ >+(2++$
;-$-="$#4'=@>"="$#4'= !('(4! '$, 2-*, .*+34+$&5 '!
' )*+,"&(-* '))*-'&:+, !"#$"%&'$&+ "$ (:+ '$'=5!+! -.
/0/! ! A # $,*' ( # $,09 B/0/! ! A #$,1' ( # $,%9 '$,
=-#"(! B/0/! ! A #$,1' ( # $%26
C=(:-4#: "( -$=5 '&&-4$(+, .-* ' !;'== )*-)-*("-$
-. (:+ 8'*"'$&+9 2-*, .*+34+$&5 2'! !("== ' !"#$"%&'$(
)*+,"&(-* D) E 6FGH 2:+$ "( 2'! +$(+*+, -$ (:+ !+&-$,
>=-&I -. ' :"+*'*&:"&'= ;4=(")=+ *+#*+!!"-$ 2"(: (:+
;-$-="$#4'=@>"="$#4'= &-$(*'!( +$(+*+, -$ (:+ %*!(
!(+)6 /:+
8'*"'$&+
+<)='"$+,
.-* (:+ &-;>"$+,
J"$%.- =0 ?8<8'
95.(-('=
(#$!"')
2&.$-2'
"# :5#5!"#$%&!
&#*
K"#4*+ L6 B/0/! .-* `$#="!: ('*#+(! )=-((+, '! ' .4$&("-$
( ) $%, 4!"$#
*'2
/0/!9
!" # $,1'
;-,+=&92-.
2'! 9%.2)-.
!" # $,*' *"C"*"#$
-. "$&*+'!"$# 2-*, .*+34+$&56 C! &'$ >+ !++$9 2-*,
+"!"#$%&! $.5%4'
2)-:
"#25
$.5%4'
"
.*+34+$&5 2'! ' !"#$"%&'$( )*+,"&(-* -. /0/ "$&",+$&+ "$
$,1' 35%#$
( ) $%, 4!"$#
) $%,
4!"$# B/0/!9
59 35%#$ &#*( 5!*
4&.2"6"4&#2'0
1' '$,
6&# !+- #'--#>
`$#="!:9 >4( (:+ +..+&( 2'! ;-!( *->4!( ';-$# >"="$#4'=
=-#"(! B/0/!6 /:+ &-**+='("-$! >+(2++$ 2-*, .*+J
+"!"#$%&!' -F4-."-#6-*
2)- )"$)-'2 "#6"*-#6- 59 8<8'0
)'*("&")'$(!6
34+$&5 '$, B/0/! .-* ;-$-="$#4'=! '$, >"="$#4'=!
'*+ !:-2$ "$ K"#4*+ L6
/:+ !"#$"%&'$&+ -. 2-*, .*+34+$&5 '! ' )*+,"&(-*
-. /0/ "$&",+$&+ .-* >"="$#4'=!9 >4( $-( ;-$-="$J
"6&! :%!2"4!.-$.-''"5# /&' 6&.."-* 5%2 /"2) +"!"#B $-( ' #--, )*+,"&(-* -. /0/ *'(+6 M$ $'(4*'="!("&
!+(("$#! D"6+69 ,"'*5 !(4,5H N4*I+ +( '=6 DOPPOH .-4$,
#4'=!9 !4##+!(! (:'( (:+ 2-*,! D-* ;-!( -. (:+;H 4!+,
$%&!L:5#5!"#$%&!
-#2-.-*
&' & '4.-*"625.
5# 2)7.'2
(:'( ' ='*#+ )*-)-*("-$ DVTBH -. /0/! *+)-*(+, 2+*+
"$ (:"! !(4,5
2+*+ '>-8+
&+*('"$ .*+34+$&5
=+8+=9
-*
'2-4> &#* &$&' & :;!4<;=>?9
65#2"#%5%'
-#2-.-*2+*+
5# .-* +<(*+;+=5 *'*+ 2-*,! D.*+34+$&5 &-4$( -. \+*-H6
3!4564789
'>-8+ 4.-*"625.
2:"&: ;-$-="$#4'=!
Y-*,! 2"(: .*+34+$&5 &-4$(! :"#:+* (:'$ QV '&J
4$="I+=5
(- +<)+*"+$&+
' /0/ 2).-* '==
2-*,!6
2)- '-65#* +34'==5
'2-40 8)"'
&#&!3'"'
65#7.:-*
&**"2"CDevyani
Sharma
Bilingual
mind
&-4$(+,
.-* -$=5 OOB -. /0/!6
/:"! &-$&=4!"-$ "! &-$!"!(+$(
2"(: (:+
'8'"='>=+ ="(+*'J
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Learning Storage Selection
Summary of evidence
Advantages and disadvantages:
�
Advantages (esp. early bilinguals):
�
�
�
Arbitrariness and verbal awareness
Non-verbal executive control tasks
Disadvantages (esp. late bilinguals):
�
�
Slower naming times and tip of the tongue effects
Slower switching-into-L1 times
Explanations:
�
Why advantages? (types of memory, inhibitory control)
�
Why disadvantages? (storage, inhibitory control)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Learning Storage Selection
Types of memory and learning
Effect: Verbal and non-verbal control
(Abutalebi & Green 2007)
� Cognitive control results from integration of separable neural systems
� Cognitive (not strictly linguistic) control used in selection and sequencing of
linguistic representations
� Advantage: Greater skill in these regions through bilingual activity
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Learning Storage Selection
Types of memory and learning
Procedural and declarative memory
(Fabbro 2001, Paradis 1994, Ullman 2001)
Later language acquisition:
Left and right, cerebral cortex:
Medial structures
Temporo-parietal lobes
Declarative memory:
• semantic and episodic memory functions
• explicit, conscious learning
Early language acquisition:
Left hemisphere, subcortical:
Frontal lobe
Basal ganglia
Inferior parietal regions
Procedural memory:
• early motor and cognitive
• + executive functions
• implicit, unconscious learning
� Procedural (early) vs. declarative (late) memory in language learning
� Selective advantage: Only ‘early regions’ = Abutalebi & Green’s effect
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Learning Storage Selection
Types of memory and learning
Phenomena accounted for by procedural/declarative distinction
�
Non-verbal control advantages among early but not late
bilinguals
�
L1/L2 differences in grammatical behaviour
�
Aphasic language recovery
(next week)
(see Ijalba et al. 2004 for summary)
� Example: E.M. mother tongue Venetian, L2 Italian: subcortical lesion involving
left basal ganglia. Increased difficulty in spontaneous L1 use and translating into
L1, despite L1 being her most frequently used language (Aglioti et al. 1996)
What about disadvantages?
�
Storage
�
Activation and selection
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Learning Storage Selection
Storage
Compound / coordinate
Revised hierarchical model
(Weinreich 1953, Erwin&Osgood 1954)
(Kroll & Stewart 1994)
� Little measurable difference
� Lexical domains may differ
Devyani Sharma
� 2 lexical stores, 1 conceptual store
� L1-L2 mediation → direct link
� Slower L2 translation: mediation
� Tip-of-tongue: weak direct links
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Learning Storage Selection
Activation and selection
Why slower naming times (even dominant bilinguals)?
Why greater L1 switching time (late bilinguals)?
�
Bilinguals ‘turn down’ but not ‘turn off’ other language
(Grosjean 2001, vs. Penfield and Roberts 1959)
�
Research focus on inhibitory control of various activation
levels (Green 1986)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
is activated). What about the flow of activation in the
but rather that the same selection mechanisms as those
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations
Critical age
Learning Storage
bilingual mind?
employed by monolinguals would be required for her to
produce language. Note that this channeling of activation
is possible because, unlike in other domains such as
word reading (see Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 2002 for
an extensive discussion), the choice of the language in
3. Functional dynamics in bilingual speech
which the message needs to be conveyed depends entirely
production
on the speaker’s intention.
However, and despite the obvious benefits of restricting
The critical question regarding the functional dynamics
activation to one language, models of bilingual speech
of the bilingual system is the following: Which linguistic
production postulate that conceptual representations
representations (e.g. words, phonemes) of the languagespread activation to the lexical representations of both
not-in-use are activated when bilinguals produce speech
languages of a bilingual (Green, 1986, 1998; de Bot,
in the other language?
1992; Poulisse and Bongaerts, 1994; Hermans, Bongaerts,
There are many occasions in which bilinguals need
de Bot and Schreuder, 1998; Costa, Miozzo and
to restrict their lexicalization to only one language since
Caramazza, 1999; Costa, 2005; La Heij, 2005; see
the use of words from their other language may disrupt
Figure 1). Such an assumption has led authors to postulate �
communication considerably, given that the interlocutor
Selection
Activation and selection
Lexical level selection
�
(Costa, La Heij, & Navarrete 2006)
Lexical level selection
& Caramazza 1999):
�
Semantic Representations
�
Lexical Nodes
(Lexical Selection)
GATO
PERRO
DOG
CAT
(Costa
‘cat’ slows access to target
‘dog’ (lexical competition)
‘perro’ speeds access to
target ‘dog’ (no cross-lg
lexical competition,
semantic identity)
‘silla’/‘cadira’ (chair,
Sp./Catalan) slow access
to target ‘mesa’ (table,
Sp.) (cross-lg = within lg
semantic interference)
Phonological Nodes
(Phonological Retrieval)
g
p
e
r
c
a
t
d
o
g
�
Weak ‘language switch’ ?
(Finkbeiner et al. 2006)
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the activation flow from the semantic to the lexical system of a Spanish–English
bilingual speaker in the course of naming the picture of a “dog” in English. The squares represent the lexical nodes of the
language not-in-use (Spanish), and the circles represent the lexical nodes of the language in use (English). The arrows
represent the flow of activation and the thickness of the circles indicates the level of activation of the representations.
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Learning Storage Selection
Activation and selection
MILLER AND KROLL
Magnitude of Interference/Facilitation (msec)
A
100
Semantic
Form
80
60
Bilingual Stroop Test (translation)
40
20
(Miller & Kroll 2002)
0
–20
cuchara (→ spoon)
– 40
– 60
Output distractors:
fork (sem.) spool (phon.)
– 80
–100
200 msec
SOA
500 msec
Magnitude of Interference/Facilitation (msec)
B
100
Semantic
Form
80
� Semantic distractors: Inhibition
� Form distractors: Facilitation
60
40
20
� (Hermans et al. 1998, Costa et al. 1999:
Picture-word task: semantic distractors
inhibit regardless of language)
� Translation task cues language so
narrows selection task to outputs
0
– 20
– 40
– 60
– 80
–100
200 msec
SOA
500 msec
Figure 2. The magnitude of facilitation (negative) and interference (positive),
in milliseconds, for semantically related distractors relative to controls and
form related distractors relative to controls as a function of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA, 200 vs. 500 msec) when (A) the distractors appeared in the language of output in Experiment 1 and (B) the distractors appeared in the language of input in Experiment 2.
mple, if the word vestido was presented for translation
Devyani Sharma
To compare the results of the two experiments, sepa-
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Learning Storage Selection
Summary
Explanations for observed patterns:
�
Type of memory (declarative/procedural):
�
�
Storage (Revised Hierarchical model):
�
�
�
�
Verbal and non-verbal control strong among early bilinguals:
highly developed procedural memory, tied to executive control
Faster translation into L1 than L2: asymmetric word/concept
mediation links
Tip of the tongue effects: lower frequency = weaker direct
links
Vocabulary size: frequency of exposure
Bilingual activation and inhibition:
�
�
�
Control advantages (highly developed inhibitory control)
Semantic, phonetic, and arbitrariness meta-awareness
Disadvantages in reaction time where competition arises
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Critical period
Key question
�
�
Is the early/late distinction sharp or gradient?
Implications:
�
�
�
�
�
Claims of innateness, UG, and critical age for native-like ability
Availability of cognitive advantages
Child-rearing practices and choices at home
Performance and policy at school
Informative for neurocognitive theories
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Critical period
Claims of L1-L2 differences:
�
L1 (vs. L2) acquisition
�
�
�
�
(Bley-Vroman 2009)
Convergence: Children end up with similar systems
Reliability: Children always succeed
Path: Children follow similar stages
Less influence of personality, motivation, and explicit teaching
�
Uncontroversial: Documentation of decline in ability
�
Controversial: Interpretation (discrete vs. continuous)
Approaches:
�
�
�
Decontextualised comparisons of NS and NNS performance
Socio-culturally contextualised studies
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Critical period
Critical period hypotheses
�
�
Lenneberg (1967): 2-14 yrs; Krashen (1973): 5 yrs; Pinker
(1994): 6 yrs; Patkowski (1980): 15 yrs
Johnson & Newport (1989): Decline from 7yrs
�
�
�
46 Ch/Kor L2ers; min. 5 yrs exposure; 3 yrs in U.S.
Various tests, incl. subjacency
Before 15, consistent acquisition; after, greater variance
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Critical period
Critiques
�
Research design
�
�
J & N: immigrant group, few controls for class, education
Subsequent controlled Ch-Eng studies: gradient/no age effect
(Juffs & Harrington 1995, Bialystok & Miller 1998, Hakuta et al. 2003
summary)
�
Near-natives indistinguishable
�
Correspondence between L1 and L2
(Bialystok 1997)
�
Similarities in L1 and L2 acquisition
(next week)
�
Distinct tasks: L1 ordered vs. L2 simultaneous acq of levels
�
Natural decline among L1 comp/prod
�
Bifurcation between native-like comp/prod
Devyani Sharma
(Birdsong 1992; White & Genesee 1993)
(summary in Rice 1996)
Bilingual mind
(Cf. Patkowski 1980)
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Education
r
-
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Census study
(Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley 2003)
Kenji Hakuta, Ellen Bialystok, and Edward Wiley
Native Chinese Speakers
Native Spanish Speakers
4,
6
-s
0
3-
r
c
.
=m
D
2-
c
W
11
0
20
40
I
60
Age of Immigration
Fig. 2. Loess tits (span = ,751 for English proficiency by age of immigration among Chinese immigrants. Results are shown separately
for different education levels: less than 5 years (“<5 Yrs Ed”), less
than 8 years (“<8 Yrs Ed”), some high school (“HS”),high school
graduate (“HS Grad), and some college (“College”).
proposed as the close of the putative critical period, nor is there evi� suggesting the variation in older learners is random-proficiency
dence
continues to decline into adulthood.
�The apparent linearity of these plots is confirmed by considering the
gain in R’ that is obtained by including a nonp-emc
form to model the
relationship between English proficiency and age of immigration for each
(Kominski
1989)
education
group. Table 7 contains
R‘ values for both linear and nonpammemc fits of English proficiency on age of immigration for each educaDevyani
Sharma
tion p u p . Little is gained by including an assumption
of nonlinearity.
-.__.
.............
......_
............
-.-. -.-<BVnEd
...............
...............‘ 5 Y n E d
11
0
20
I
40
60
Age of Immigration
ig. 3. Loess fits (span = .75) for English proficiency by age of ilr
iigration among Spanish-speaking immigrants. Results are show
:parately for different education levels: less than 5 years (“<5 YI
d”), less than 8 years ( “ i s Yrs Ed”), some high schwl (“HS”), hig
:hod graduate (“HSGrad“), and some college (“College”).
Aeknowledgmentslhis study was suppaned in pan by grant
Census data: 2,016,317 Spanish;
324,444fin1Chinese
Spencer Foundation
author. We
Edith McA~thurfor
a
to the
thank
from the
bring-
ing the data set 10 our attention, and Dorothy Waggoner far providing us
with data on the National Content Test that enabled the analysis reponed in
Validated against actual language proficiency measures
footnote 1.
Bilingual mind
REFERENCES
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Other complications
Age and life trajectory
(Stevens 1999)
�
Census study; very careful methodology
�
Conclusion: age
�
Explanation: not purely maturational, sociological too
� “When we take into account length of residence in the U.S. along with features
of the immigrants’ family background, educational history, and current familial
and activity characteristics, then the direct effects of age at immigration on
English proficiency in adulthood lessen. These results suggest that age at
immigration is related to level of proficiency in English in adulthood in large part
because the timing of immigration within the life-course sets immigrants onto
certain life-course trajectories. For example, immigrants who enter the
country earlier in life are more likely to go to school in the U.S., and are more
likely to marry a native-born American, than those who enter the country at
older ages.” (p. 574)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Other complications
Age and proficiency: ERP data
(Steinhauer et al. 2009)
� “Proficiency rather than AoA seems to predict brain activity patterns in L2
processing, including native-like activity at very high levels of proficiency.
Further, a strict distinction between linguistic structures that late L2 learners
can vs. cannot learn to process in a native-like manner (Clahsen and Felser
2006) may not be warranted. Instead, morpho-syntactic real-time processing in
general seems to undergo dramatic, but systematic, changes with increasing
proficiency levels.
�
Semantic anomaly (N400); morphosyntactic anomaly (P600)
�
Morphosyntactic violations: High proficiency = LANs/P600s;
low proficiency = N400s
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Social factors
Network
�
Language abilities (and attitudes, motivation) correspond to
network participation (Mougeon, Beniak, Rehner group)
�
This can result in acquisition of non-standard forms/norms
(e.g. Turkish-German example from last week)
�
L2 learners may actively select target variety, based on social
context, solidarity, status, local community (Beebe 1985)
Additional factors
�
Language status: Lower prestige may lead to reduced
motivation, practice
�
Discourse: Socialisation of adults into a language via discourse
is markedly different from that of children (Tarone, Duff)
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Individual factors
Attitude and motivation
�
Responses to input vary with life stage:
baby (caregivers), child
(older children), adolescent (peers), adult (networks, migration)
�
Tajfel (1981): theory of inter-group relations
(acceptance v.
rejection of inferior status and linguistic consequences)
�
NNSs are not always rewarded for native-like speech:
“non-natives are likely to face social consequences when their linguistic
behaviour complies with sociolinguistic rules saved (by some norm) for the
natives. Examples are the usage of obscenities, slang expressions, or very formal
pronunciation... a set of as yet unidentified norms... proscribe the use of some
forms on the part of the non-native speaker.” (Janicki 1985)
�
Greater fluency in NNS-NNS interactions
�
Baker (1988): Attitudes affect behaviour, but weakly
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Integrating biological age with other factors
Moyer (2004)
Integrating biological age with cognitive, social, and psychological factors:
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Social and individual factors: A case study
L1 attrition and L2 mastery (Major 1993)
�
�
�
�
Acq of L2 Portuguese VOT, loss of L1 English VOT
5 American women living in Brazil (12-35 years spent there)
Length of stay not significant; age not significant (controlled)
L2 mastery → loss of casual (but not formal) L1 phonology:
�
�
�
Longest residents (B1, B2): poor Prt, maintained Eng
Possibly caused by negative feedback
Shortest resident (B5): native-like Prt VOT → casual Eng
Most closely identified with Brazil
English VOT regained with (i) attention, (ii) return to U.S.
� ‘The subjects showing the greatest loss in their native accent in English were
those who approached native Portuguese more closely and closely identified
with Brazilian culture’
�
Attitude (speaker-driven) or accommodation (interaction-driven)?
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
Summary
Bilingual ability
�
Bilinguals generally show cognitive advantages
�
Exception: frequency effects on vocabulary and recall
(but this is assumes the ‘twin monolingual’ view)
�
Early bilinguals show greater advantages than late bilinguals
�
Explanations: Memory/learning, storage, retrieval
Critical age controversy
�
Procedural/declarative memory: L1-L2 differences
�
But evidence suggests no severe decline at a single point
�
Age not purely maturational; deep social correlates
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
References
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. 2007. Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation
and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242-275.
Allport, A. Styles, E. A. Hsieh, S. 1994. Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks, C.
UmiltaM. Moscovitch, Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing, 421,
452, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
Baker, Colin. 1988. Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. England: Multilingual Matters.
Beebe, L. M. 1985. Input: Choosing the right stuff, in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language
Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Bialystok, E. 1997: The structure of age: in search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language
Research, 13, 116-137.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control:
Evidence from the Simon Task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290-303.
Birdsong, D. 1992: Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68, 706-55.
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. 1999. Is lexical selection language specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English
bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2, 231-244
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. 2004. Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language
switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491-511.
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
References
Costa, A., Hernandez, M., & Sebastin-Galls, N. 2008. Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT
task. Cognition, 106, 59-86.
Cummins, J. 1976. The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and
explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No.9, l-43.
Cummins, J. 1978. Educational implications of mother tongue maintenance in minority-language groups. Canadian
Modern Language Review 34. 395-416.
Fabbro, F. 2001. The bilingual brain: cerebral representation of languages. Brain and language 79: 2, pp. 211-22
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. 2007. Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum.
Gathercole, S. E. & Thorn, A. S. C. 1998. Phonological short-term memory and foreign language learning. In A. F.
Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language and learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. pp
141-158. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gollan, T.H. & Silverberg, N.B. 2001. Tip-of-the-tongue states in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 4, 63-83
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in
bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210-223
Grosjean, F. 2008. Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis for
second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14, 3138
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
References
Haugen, 1977. Einar Haugen, Norm and deviation in bilingual communities. In: P. Hornby, Editor,
BilingualismPsychological, social and educational implications, Academic Press, New York, pp. 91102.
Hill, Jane. 1993. Structure and practice in language shift. In Hyltenstam, K. & A. Viberg (eds.) Progression and
regression in language: sociocultural, neuropsychological and linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ianco-Worrall, Anita D. 1972. Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development, 43, 1390-1400.
Ijalba, E., Obler, L. K. & Chengappa, S. 2004. Bilingual aphasia. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The
Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 7189). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Ivanova I., and Costa, A. 2008. Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production? Acta Psychologica ,
127, 277-288. Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. New York: W. W. Norton
& Co.
Janicki, K. 1985: The foreigner’s language. Oxford: Pergamon.
Johnson, J.S. and Newport, E.L. 1989: Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of
maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology 21, 60-99.
Juffs, A., and Harrington, M. 1995: Parsing effects in L2 sentence processing: subject and object asymmetries in
Wh-extraction. Studies in Second-Language Acquisition 17, 483-516.
Kovcs, . M. & Mehler, J. 2009. Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants. PNAS, 106, 6556-6560.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. 1994. Category interferences in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric
connection between bilingual memory representation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
References
Lenneberg, E. 1967: Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
MacSwan Jeff. 2000. The threshold hypothesis, semilingualism, and other contributions to a deficit view of
linguistics minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 3-45
Major, Roy C. 1993. Sociolinguistic factors in loss and acquisition of phonology. In Progression and Regression in
Language, ed. Kenneth Hyltenstam and Ake Viberg. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press
Martin-Jones Marilyn, & Romaine, Suzanne. (1986). Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative
competence. Applied Linguistics, 7, 26-38.
Miller, N. A., & Kroll, J. F. 2002. Stroop effects in bilingual translation. Memory & Cognition, 30, 614-628.
Moyer, A. 2004. Age, accent and experience in second language acquisition. An integrated approach to critical
period inquiry Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Paradis, M. 1994. Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism. In: N.
Ellis, Editor, Implicit and explicit learning of second languages, Academic Press, London (1994), pp. 393419.
Patkowksy, M. 1980: The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning
30, 449-72.
Peal, E., and Lambert, W. E. 1962. The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psycholocical Monographs, 76,
1-23.
Penfield, W. and L. Roberts. 1959. Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind
Recap Attitudes Evidence Explanations Critical age
Critical age hypotheses Contextual factors References
References
Rice, Catherine. 1996. Investigating age effects on ultimate attainment in second language acquisition.
Proceedings of the Edinburgh Linguistics Department Conference 96.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism. 2 ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steinhauer, Karsten, E. White, J. Drury. 2009. Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: evidence
from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, 13-41
Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ullman, M.T. 2001. The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the
declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4 (2001), pp. 105122
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953/1968. Languages in contact: findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
White, L. and Genesee, F. 1996: How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second
language acquisition. Second Language Research 12, 233-65.
Devyani Sharma
Bilingual mind