Handout: Intro to Psycholinguistics PDF

Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Handout: Intro to Psycholinguistics The handout explores the field of psycholinguistics, defined as the study of cognitive processes that underlie the acquisition and use of language. This definition encompasses first language (L1) acquisition, second language...

Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Handout: Intro to Psycholinguistics The handout explores the field of psycholinguistics, defined as the study of cognitive processes that underlie the acquisition and use of language. This definition encompasses first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) learning, language comprehension, production, and impairment. For bilinguals, the focus often involves how two languages interact in the mind, compete for cognitive resources, and are processed during comprehension and production. Core Questions of Psycholinguistics: Psycholinguistics tackles fundamental questions about language: - Neurolinguistics: Focuses on the physical location of language in the brain, exploring which areas (e.g., left or right hemisphere, specific regions) are involved in language processing. - Psycholinguistics: Investigates how language is processed, emphasizing the abstract and representational workings of the mind rather than physical structures. - Other key questions include why bilinguals switch or mix languages, how they interpret ambiguous sentences, and why both children and adult learners make predictable errors (e.g., “writed” instead of “wrote”). Linguistics and Psycholinguistics: Psycholinguistics is one branch among several in linguistics, each with a specific focus: - Descriptive Linguistics: The study of language structures. - Theoretical Linguistics: Includes formal and functional approaches to understanding language rules. - Neurolinguistics: Concentrates on brain-language relationships, using methods like neuroimaging. -Psycholinguistics: Analyzes cognitive processes, using experiments like reaction time (RT), eye tracking, and EEG. Research Traditions Psycholinguistics has evolved through two major research traditions: 1. Behaviorism: Dominant in the 1950s, it linked language learning to external stimuli and observable behavior. Inspired by Pavlov’s classical conditioning, it posited that language acquisition involves forming associations through trial and error. B.F. Skinner applied this to language, proposing the “audiolingual method” for second language learning, which emphasized repetition and reinforcement. However, behaviorism was criticized for ignoring mental processes and failing to explain novel language production (e.g., “mouses” instead of “mice”). 2. Cognitivism: Emerging in the 1960s during the cognitive revolution, it shifted focus to internal mental processes. Noam Chomsky argued that language is innate, recursive, and not merely learned through imitation. He introduced key questions about language knowledge (competence), acquisition, and use (performance). This perspective laid the foundation for studying psycholinguistic performance, distinguishing it from SLA, which often examines competence. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Methods and Theories Psycholinguistics employs a wide array of methods: - Reaction Time (RT) and Eye Tracking (ET): Measure processing speed and gaze patterns during language tasks. - Neuroimaging: Techniques like EEG and fMRI reveal where and how language is processed in the brain. - Corpus Analysis: Examines patterns in language use across large datasets. - Diverse theoretical models include nativist approaches (e.g., Universal Grammar) and connectionist frameworks that emphasize neural networks. Bilingualism and L2 Learning A significant focus of psycholinguistics is bilingualism and second language acquisition. Questions include how two grammars are represented in the mind, why bilinguals switch between languages, and how L2 learners process and produce language. Errors in L2 learning, such as mixing languages or applying incorrect grammatical rules, are key areas of study. The field explores both competence (knowledge of language) and performance (real-time processing). Broader Implications Psycholinguistics intersects with cognitive neuroscience, developmental psycholinguistics, and cognitive linguistics: - Neurolinguistics emphasizes where language is activated in the brain. - Developmental Psycholinguistics focuses on L1 acquisition in children. - Cognitive Linguistics examines how language use shapes knowledge, rejecting the idea that language is an autonomous cognitive faculty. Different researchers and their contribution in this Handout B.F. Skinner: Central figure in behaviorism. Proposed that language acquisition is a form of verbal behavior, learned through imitation and reinforcement. His work inspired the audiolingual method in SLA, which focused on repetition and conditioning. Noam Chomsky: Revolutionized linguistics in the 1960s with his nativist approach. Argued that language is innate, governed by Universal Grammar (UG), and not acquired solely through imitation or external stimuli. Distinguished between competence (knowledge of language) and performance (actual use). VanPatten, B.: Author of the compulsory reading cited in the handout: The Psycholinguistics of SLA. Contributed to understanding how learners process and acquire an L2. Focused on psycholinguistic methods in SLA research. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Pavlov: Not directly a linguist but foundational in behaviorism. Known for classical conditioning experiments (e.g., Pavlov’s dog), which influenced language learning theories in the behaviorist tradition. Steven Pinker: Mentioned as additional material in the handout. Known for his work on the cognitive science of language, emphasizing the mind’s role in language acquisition and processing. De Bot, K., & Kroll, J.F.: Defined psycholinguistics in a bilingual context, highlighting cognitive processes in L2 acquisition and use. Handout: Language and the brain The handout Language and the Brain explores how language is processed and localized in the human brain, focusing on brain anatomy, the role of specific areas, experimental evidence, and language deficits. Basic Brain Structure and Function The brain comprises two hemispheres (left and right), connected by the corpus callosum, and divided into four lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital. Language processing is primarily associated with the left hemisphere. The cortex, the brain's outer layer, is responsible for higher cognitive functions, including language. - Contralateral Control: Each hemisphere controls the opposite side of the body. - Key Brain Components: - Cerebellum: Manages automatic body functions (e.g., breathing). - Cerebrum: Main brain involved in higher-order processing, including language. Language Areas in the Brain 1. Broca's Area (Paul Broca, 1861): - Located in the frontal lobe. - Associated with grammatical processing and speech production. - Damage causes Broca's Aphasia, characterized by: - Poor fluency. - Ungrammatical speech. - Difficulty forming complete sentences, despite good comprehension. Example of speech in Broca's Aphasia: - "I eggs and eat and drink coffee breakfast" (instead of “I had eggs, ate them, and drank coffee for breakfast”). Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo 2. Wernicke's Area (Carl Wernicke, 1872): - Located in the temporal lobe. - Primarily responsible for semantics (meaning). - Damage results in Wernicke's Aphasia, with symptoms like: - Fluent but incoherent speech. - Difficulty understanding language. - Issues retrieving words (anomia). Example of Wernicke’s Aphasia: - Patient: “I know what it is…it’s a…ah…the…biggest…I still have trouble with the…ah…different.” 3. Arcuate Fasciculus: A neural pathway connecting Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas, facilitating communication between grammar and meaning. Hemispheric Specialization - The left hemisphere specializes in verbal sounds and language processing, while the right hemisphere is better at recognizing non-verbal sounds (e.g., music, bird calls). - Dichotic Listening experiments demonstrate the "right ear advantage," where verbal input to the right ear (processed by the left hemisphere) is recalled more accurately than input to the left ear. Language Deficits and Phenomena 1. Aphasias: - Provide evidence for the localization of language functions in specific brain areas. - Types: - Broca’s Aphasia: Difficulty producing grammatical sentences. - Wernicke’s Aphasia: Fluent but nonsensical speech. - Anomic Aphasia: Difficulty naming objects. 2. Tip-of-the-Tongue (ToT) Phenomenon: - The inability to retrieve a word while knowing its phonological characteristics (e.g., number of syllables, starting sound). - Indicates that words are stored and accessed in specific brain regions. 3. Slips of the Tongue (SoT): - Errors in speech production, such as word reversals or sound substitutions. - Example: Saying “black bloxes” instead of “black boxes.” - Reflects disruptions in the brain’s language production processes. 4. Slips of the Ear (SoE): - Misinterpretations of spoken language due to segmentation or perceptual errors. - Example: Hearing “great ape” instead of “grey tape.” Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Neurological Evidence and Brain Imaging - Neuroimaging shows language areas activation during tasks such as verb generation (e.g., hearing “decision” and saying “decide”). - Modern research challenges the strict localization of functions, suggesting that language involves distributed neural networks. Key Questions The handout raises several critical questions about language and the brain: - Do bilinguals process L1 and L2 in the same brain areas? - Are components of language (e.g., phonology, syntax) processed in the same or different regions? - How do injuries to specific areas affect linguistic abilities? Development of the Brain - At birth, most neurons are in place, but connections between neurons develop over time, especially during childhood. - The brain’s development supports its capacity for complex cognitive and linguistic functions. Handout: Intro to syntactic parsing This handout introduces the concept of syntactic parsing, focusing on how the human mind processes sentence structure in real time. It explores parsing theories, experimental methods, and their applications to both first (L1) and second (L2) language processing. What is Parsing? Parsing is the mental process of analyzing sentence structure during comprehension. It involves two key steps: 1. Structuring Input: - Classifying words into grammatical categories (e.g., noun, verb, adjective). - Assigning hierarchical syntactic representations to these categories. 2. Establishing Dependencies: - Identifying relationships between sentence elements (e.g., pronouns and antecedents: *John thinks he is smart*). Parsing is fast, efficient, and unconscious, though it becomes slower when sentences are ambiguous or unexpected structures arise. Parsing Experiments: Self-Paced Reading Task (SPRT) - SPRT Overview: - Participants read sentences segment by segment on a screen. - Reaction times (RTs) are recorded for each segment to measure cognitive effort. - Critical regions in sentences—where unexpected structures occur—require reanalysis, leading to increased RTs. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo - Types of SPRT Presentation: 1. Non-Cumulative: Only one segment is visible at a time. 2. Center Non-Cumulative: Each segment replaces the previous one in the same position. 3. Cumulative: Each new segment is added to the previous, forming a complete sentence. - Advantages of SPRT: - Measures real-time processing with high precision. - Minimizes metalinguistic interference. - Disadvantages of SPRT: - Reading in segments is unnatural. - Requires many sentences and stimuli, making design time-consuming. Parsing Theories 1. Garden Path Model (Frazier, 1987): - Suggests that the parser follows heuristics (strategies) to minimize cognitive effort. - Two main principles: - Minimal Attachment: Build the simplest syntactic tree with the fewest nodes. - Late Closure: Attach new information to the phrase currently being processed. - Garden Path Sentences: - Sentences that mislead the parser into an incorrect initial analysis. - Example: *The old man the boats*. - Initial parse: *The old man* (interpreted as a subject). - Reanalysis: *The old* is the subject; *man* is the verb. - Cross-linguistic Differences: - English: Prefers Low attachment (Late Closure). - Spanish: Prefers High attachment (Early Closure). - Example: - English: *The daughter of the psychologist who studied in California* (who = psychologist). - Spanish: *La hija del psicólogo que estudió en California* (que = hija). 2. Linguistic Tuning Hypothesis (Cuetos & Mitchell, 1988): - Parsing strategies are influenced by experience and frequency of exposure. - Frequent structures in a language shape parsing preferences over time. - Corpus studies show differences in ambiguity resolution: - Spanish favors high attachment. - English favors low attachment. Experimental Findings 1. Parsing Ambiguities: - Sentences like *Put the apple on the towel in the box* highlight reanalysis: - Initial parse: *Put [the apple] [on the towel]*. - Reanalysis: *Put [the apple [on the towel]] [in the box]*. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo 2. Pronoun Antecedents: - Gender mismatches (e.g., *John hates herself*) increase RTs, showing how parsing integrates grammatical expectations with real-time processing. 3. Cross-Linguistic Parsing in Bilinguals: - Key Question: Do bilinguals transfer parsing strategies from L1 to L2? - Hypothesis: Parsing strategies might be innate, but bilinguals’ parsing could depend on their dominant language or frequency of exposure. Parsing in L2: Challenges and Implications Parsing in a second language raises critical questions about how bilinguals process sentences when their L1 and L2 employ different strategies. For example: - If L1 uses high attachment and L2 uses low attachment, will bilinguals adapt to L2 parsing strategies, or will they transfer those from L1? - This involves the concept of **strategy transfer**, distinct from syntactic transfer, and emphasizes the interaction between linguistic competence and parsing performance. Handout: Syntactic parsing of relative clause attachment This handout focuses on how relative clauses (RCs) are processed in monolingual and bilingual contexts. It explains RC attachment preferences in native languages, second language acquisition (SLA), and bilinguals, using experimental findings to explore parsing strategies. Parsing Relative Clauses (RCs) Relative clauses create syntactic dependencies between a pronoun (e.g., *who*) and its antecedent. The key question in RC parsing is: To which noun phrase (NP) does the relative pronoun attach? - Attachment Types: - High Attachment (NP1): The pronoun attaches to the higher noun phrase in the syntax tree. - Low Attachment (NP2): The pronoun attaches to the lower noun phrase. Example: - *Peter fell in love with the daughter of the psychologist who studied in California.* - High Attachment: *Who* refers to *the daughter* (preferred in Spanish). - Low Attachment: *Who* refers to *the psychologist* (preferred in English). Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Native Language Parsing 1. English: - Prefers Low attachment. - Strategy aligns with the *Late Closure* principle of the Garden Path Model: new items are attached to the most recently processed constituent. 2. Spanish: - Prefers High attachment. - Strategy reflects a preference for **Early Closure**, attaching items to earlier constituents in the syntax tree. These differences indicate that parsing strategies vary cross-linguistically, influenced by language structure and usage. Parsing in L2: Dussias (2003) Research Question: Do L2 learners parse sentences like native speakers of their L2, or do they transfer parsing strategies from their L1? 1. Participants: - Bilingual Groups: - Spanish-English bilinguals (dominant in English, living in the USA). - English-Spanish bilinguals (advanced learners of Spanish). - Monolingual Controls: - Native Spanish and English speakers. 2. Experiments: - Offline Questionnaire: - Participants read sentences with ambiguous RCs and answered comprehension questions to identify their attachment preference. - Online Self-Paced Reading Task (SPRT): - Sentences were presented segment by segment to measure reaction times (RTs) and real-time processing effort. Key Findings 1. Offline Results: - Spanish-English bilinguals living in the USA showed a preference for **low attachment** in Spanish, indicating L2 (English) dominance and potential L1 attrition. - English-Spanish bilinguals used their L1 English strategy (low attachment) when processing Spanish, but some showed emerging high attachment preferences. 2. SPRT Results: - Spanish Monolinguals: Faster RTs for high attachment sentences, confirming their natural parsing strategy. - English-Spanish Bilinguals: Slower RTs for high attachment sentences, suggesting transfer of L1 English parsing strategies. - Spanish-English Bilinguals: Processed Spanish sentences with English strategies, showing L1 attrition due to L2 dominance. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Implications and Conclusions 1. Bilingual Parsing: - Bilinguals and L2 learners do not parse their L2 like native speakers. - Parsing strategies are influenced by exposure and frequency, aligning with the “Linguistic Tuning Hypothesis”: experience with frequent structures shapes parsing preferences. 2. L1 Attrition: - Spanish-English bilinguals in the USA showed erosion of their L1 Spanish parsing strategies, favoring English strategies due to L2 dominance. - This highlights how language dominance and usage can reshape cognitive processing over time. 3. End-State Bilingualism: - Parsing differences between bilinguals and monolinguals demonstrate performance (parsing) divergence rather than competence (knowledge) differences. Handout: Parsing of anaphora resolution This handout explores anaphora resolution (AR) in native and second language processing, focusing on the syntactic and discourse-level constraints involved, cross-linguistic differences, and how bilinguals and second language learners navigate these complexities. What is Anaphora Resolution (AR)? -Definition: AR is the process by which the mind links a pronoun (anaphor) to its antecedent (a preceding noun or NP) in a sentence or discourse. - Dependency in Parsing: - Anaphors create dependencies that require resolution to fully comprehend the sentence. - Example: - “Elena vio a Gloria mientras caminaba por el parque”. - Who was walking in the park? (Elena or Gloria?) - The parser must determine whether the anaphor (*caminaba*) refers to the subject (*Elena*) or the object (*Gloria*). Syntactic Constraints on AR 1. Condition A: Reflexive pronouns (e.g., *himself*) must have a local antecedent within the same clause. - Example: “John said Peter washed himself” → “himself” must refer to Peter. 2. Condition B: Personal pronouns (e.g., “him”) cannot have a local antecedent. - Example: “John washed him” → “him” cannot refer to John. 3. Condition C: Referential expressions (e.g., proper nouns) must not have antecedents that c-command them. - Example: “He washed John” → “He” cannot refer to John. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Position of Antecedent Strategy (PAS) - Overview: A structural strategy originally proposed for Italian, stating: 1. Null pronouns (e.g., *Ø*) tend to refer to higher syntactic positions (subjects). 2. Overt pronouns (e.g., *él*) prefer lower syntactic positions (objects). - Example in Spanish: - “María saludó a Ana. Está contenta.” (Who is happy?) - Null pronoun (“está”) prefers the subject (“María”). - “Mario avisó a Miguel. Él está asustado.” (Who is scared?) - Overt pronoun (“él”) prefers the object (“Miguel”). - Cross-linguistic findings: - Italian, Spanish, and Catalan follow PAS for null pronouns but show some variation in overt pronoun preferences. Cross-Linguistic Variations in Anaphoric Forms - Null-Subject Languages” (e.g., Spanish, Italian): - Null pronouns: Mark topic continuity (e.g., “Juan vio a Pedro mientras Ø bajaba del coche”). - Overt pronouns: Mark topic shift (e.g., “Juani vio a Pedro mientras él bajaba del coche”). - Non Null-Subject Languages (e.g., English, French): - Overt pronouns are always required, regardless of discourse context. AR in Discourse: Information Structure - Null pronouns typically signal topic continuity, while overt pronouns mark topic shifts. - Example: - “Juan(1) helped Pedro(2) wash the car. He(1) washed the windows while Peter(2) washed the hood.” - “He” (topic continuity) refers to John. - “Juan(1) saw Pedro(2) while he(1/2) was getting out of the car.* - “He” introduces ambiguity: Is it John or Pedro? AR in L2 Acquisition and Bilingualism 1. Research Question: - Do L2 learners and bilinguals adopt L1 or L2 AR strategies? 2. Studies: - “Jegerski et al. (2011)”: - Found that advanced L2 learners of Spanish begin adopting PAS-like strategies but intermediates do not. - “Keating et al. (2011)”: - Early bilinguals (heritage speakers, HS) are less sensitive to PAS than late bilinguals (L2 learners), likely due to incomplete acquisition and reduced input. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Experimental Findings 1. English vs. Spanish: - English speakers struggle with null pronouns in Spanish because overt pronouns dominate in English. 2. Null vs. Overt Pronouns in Spanish: - Advanced L2 learners: Prefer null pronouns for subjects, aligning with PAS. - Heritage speakers: Show equal preference for null and overt pronouns, deviating from PAS due to insufficient input and exposure. - Native speakers: Strongly prefer null pronouns for topic continuity, consistent with PAS. 3. Heritage Speakers and Input: - Heritage speakers often receive less input in Spanish and mainly interact in English-dominant environments, leading to incomplete acquisition of AR strategies. Implications for Language Processing 1. Bilingual Parsing: - Early bilinguals may exhibit non-native AR strategies due to reduced and lower-quality input. - Late bilinguals and advanced L2 learners can develop PAS-like strategies with sufficient exposure. 2. Role of Input and Literacy: - Quality and quantity of input, as well as literacy in the target language, significantly impact AR development. Handout: Types of bilingual learners This handout discusses bilingualism from a psycholinguistic perspective, focusing on defining bilingualism, types of bilinguals based on age of onset (AoO), input factors in child bilingualism, and the neural basis of bilingual language processing. Defining Bilingualism 1. Who is bilingual? - The definition of bilingualism is debated and depends on the field: - Second Language Acquisition (SLA): Considers anyone learning a second language at any stage (e.g., beginner to near-native). - Psychology/Education: Focuses on degree of knowledge and steady-state processing. - Continuum Model: - Bilingualism is not binary but exists on a spectrum, both as a process (learning) and as a product (proficiency). Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo 2. Mythical Bilinguals: - Valdés (2001): The "mythical bilingual" is someone who speaks two languages perfectly, indistinguishable from monolinguals. This ideal is rare, and bilinguals typically vary in proficiency across their two languages. Types of Bilinguals 1. Based on Age of Onset (AoO): 1. Simultaneous Bilinguals (BFLA): - Learn two languages from birth or within the first few months. - Achieve native-like competence in both languages. 2. Sequential Bilinguals: - Early Bilinguals: Begin learning L2 before age 7. - Late Bilinguals: Begin learning L2 after age 7. Their competence can be variable, often influenced by critical periods in language acquisition. 2. Child Bilingualism (Romaine, 1995): Romaine categorizes child bilinguals into five types based on parental language use, community language, and input strategies: - Type 1: One Parent, One Language (OPOL): - Each parent exclusively speaks their native language to the child. - Example: The father speaks Spanish, the mother speaks English, and the child learns both languages. - Type 2: One Language, One Environment (OLOE): - The child hears one language at home and another in the community. - Example: A child hears Spanish at home but learns English at school in the USA. - Type 3: Non-Native Parents Using a Second Language: - Parents deliberately speak a non-native language to the child. - Example: Spanish-speaking parents in Spain speak English at home to raise a bilingual child. - Type 4: Mixed Languages at Home: - Both parents are bilingual and use a mix of two languages, often code-switching. - Example: Parents alternate between French and English at home while the community predominantly speaks English. - Type 5: Non-Native Parents (NNP): - One or both parents use a learned second language alongside their native language. - Example: In Spain, the father speaks English (L2), and the mother speaks Spanish (L1). Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Neural Basis of Bilingualism 1. Key Question: - Are L1 and L2 processed in the same or different areas of the brain, and does this depend on age of acquisition? 2. “Kim et al. (1997)”Study: - Participants: - Early bilinguals: Acquired both languages from infancy. - Late bilinguals: Acquired L2 after age 11. - Task: Describe events from the previous day in L1 and L2 while brain activity was measured using fMRI. - Findings: - Broca’s Area (grammar and syntax): - Early bilinguals: Overlapping activation for L1 and L2. - Late bilinguals: Distinct activation sites for L1 and L2. - Wernicke’s Area (semantics and comprehension): - Minimal or no separation of activity for both groups. - Conclusion: - Early bilinguals process both languages in similar neural areas, while late bilinguals show spatial separation in Broca's area for L2. Key Takeaways 1. Bilingualism is a complex phenomenon with varying definitions, from SLA’s focus on development stages to psychology’s emphasis on proficiency and processing. 2. The type of bilingualism (simultaneous vs. sequential) and input factors significantly affect ultimate attainment and language processing strategies. 3. Neural evidence suggests that age of acquisition is a critical factor in how bilinguals process their languages, with early acquisition leading to more integrated neural representations. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Handout: Mental lexicon and executive control: Stroop effect This handout explores the Stroop effect, its relevance in psycholinguistic research, and its implications for understanding bilingual processing, executive control, and attentional mechanisms. The Stroop Effect 1. Overview: - First described by J. Ridley Stroop in 1935. - Demonstrates the interference between two cognitive processes: reading and color-naming. - Example: - Congruent condition: The word "BLUE" written in blue color (easy to process). - Incongruent condition: The word "BLUE" written in red color (creates conflict). 2. Mechanism: - Reading is more automatic and faster than color-naming, creating a conflict in the incongruent condition. - The brain must inhibit the dominant reading process to correctly identify the color, which increases reaction time (RT). 3. Rationale: - Stroop tasks measure “attentional control” by assessing the brain’s ability to resolve conflict between competing processes. - Reaction times provide insight into executive functions, such as selective attention and cognitive control. Stroop Task and Executive Control 1. Executive Control: - Associated with frontal lobe functions, including attentional focus and task switching. - Develops late in childhood and declines with aging. - Bilinguals are thought to have enhanced executive control because they constantly manage two active languages, inhibiting one while using the other. 2. Conditions: - Congruent (control): Word meaning and color match (e.g., "RED" in red). - Incongruent (experimental): Word meaning and color do not match (e.g., "RED" in blue). 3. Theories Explaining the Stroop Effect: - Speed of Processing Theory: - Words are read faster than colors are named, creating interference. - Selective Attention Theory: - Naming colors requires more attention than reading words, leading to conflict resolution delays in the incongruent condition. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo The Stroop Effect in Bilinguals 1. Bilingual Advantage: - Bilinguals show enhanced executive control due to their need to regulate the activation of two languages. - Proficiency plays a role: High-proficiency bilinguals demonstrate greater control compared to low-proficiency bilinguals. 2. Key Study: Bialystok et al. (2011): - Research Question: Do bilinguals exhibit better executive control than monolinguals? - Participants: - Young adults (20 years old) and older adults (68 years old), divided into monolingual and bilingual groups. - Task: Perform a Stroop task measuring RTs in congruent and incongruent conditions. 3. Findings: - Reaction Times (RTs): - Congruent < Incongruent for all participants, confirming the classic Stroop effect. - Stroop Effect (RT difference between incongruent and congruent): - Bilinguals < Monolinguals, indicating a bilingual advantage in executive control. - Age Effect: - Older participants had slower RTs overall, consistent with cognitive aging effects. - Conclusion: - Bilinguals outperform monolinguals in resolving conflict, likely due to enhanced attentional control from managing dual language systems. Implications and Applications 1. Cognitive Aging: - The Stroop effect highlights how aging impacts executive control, with bilingualism potentially mitigating some declines. 2. Language Proficiency: - Higher proficiency in L2 may predict better performance in attentional tasks, even in L1. 3. Bilingualism as a Cognitive Resource: - Constant activation and inhibition of two languages may bolster cognitive processes beyond language tasks. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Handout: Codeswitching This handout examines code-switching (CS) in bilinguals, exploring its linguistic, cognitive, and processing aspects. It includes theoretical models, experimental evidence, and practical insights into how bilinguals manage their two languages. What is Code-Switching? 1. Definition: - Code-switching refers to the alternate use of two languages within a conversation, sentence, or even a word. - Example: *“Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español.”* 2. Characteristics: - CS is systematic and governed by grammatical rules. - It is not a language deficit but a natural outcome of bilingual language use. 3. Units of CS: - Inter-sentential: Switching between sentences or clauses (e.g., *"I went to the store, y después compré comida."*). - Intra-sentential: Switching within a phrase or word (e.g., *"I want a motorcycle verde."*). Language Choice and Mode 1. Language Choice: - Base Language (Matrix Language): The dominant language in a conversation, providing grammatical structure. - Guest Language (Embedded Language): The secondary language, less activated but available for use. 2. Language Mode: - Monolingual Mode: Only one language is active. - Bilingual Mode: Both languages are active, with varying activation levels. - Bilinguals shift along the monolingual-bilingual continuum based on context. Grammatical Constraints on CS 1. Head-Complement Principle (HCP): - Functional heads (e.g., determiners, verbs) determine the syntax of their complements. - Common CS patterns: - "Dame [DP the receipt]." (Spanish head, English complement) - "Estoy [PP on the second floor]." (Spanish preposition, English complement) 2. Functional Element Effect (FEE): - Preference for switching between the head (functional element) in one language and the complement in another. - Supported by “Dussias (1999)”, which showed faster reading times for sentences adhering to FEE in Spa/Eng bilinguals. Profesor: Cristóbal Jesús Lozano Pozo Cognitive Costs of Code-Switching 1. Processing Costs: - Code-switching incurs a cognitive cost, reflected in longer reaction times (RTs) for switch trials compared to non-switch trials. - Asymmetrical Costs: - Switching from a non-dominant language (L2) to the dominant language (L1) is more costly due to the effort required to suppress L1. 2. Meuter & Allport (1999): - Investigated cognitive costs using a number-naming task. - Results: Switching to L1 (dominant) is more costly than switching to L2 (non-dominant). --- Context Effects on CS 1. Olson (2016): - Studied how context influences switching costs. - Findings: - Monolingual Mode: Higher costs when switching into L1. - Bilingual Mode: Symmetrical costs for switching into L1 and L2. - Explanation: Inhibitory Control Theory (ICT)—inhibition of the dominant language is context-sensitive and greater in monolingual mode. Summary Code-switching provides insights into bilingual cognitive processes, demonstrating how bilinguals balance activation and inhibition of their two languages. Processing costs are influenced by dominance, context, and grammatical constraints. These findings highlight the systematic nature of CS and its role in understanding bilingual cognition. Let me know if you'd like further elaboration!