Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick _____________________________________

Psycholinguistics Universität des Saarlandes Dept. 4.3: English Linguistics SS 2009 Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick_____________________________________

7.4.4 Language processing in the bilingual brain Depending how they're acquired, L1 & L2 may even be lateralized differently in brain: • L2 lateralized in right hemisphere • L2 less lateralized than L1 • L1 & L2 both less lateralized than in monolinguals evidence from aphasia indicates that languages are separately organized in brain, but not necessarily lateralized separately

As Paradis (1979, 1985) shows, bilinguals comes in many types Bilinguals may differ with regard to • manner of acquisition (formal, informal) • mode of acquisition (oral, written) • method of acquisition (deductive, inductive, analytic, global) • age of acquisition (during or after critical period) • stage of acquisition • degree of proficiency

frequency and modes of use • language-specific features of L1 & L2 • sharing features and rules at various levels on every linguistic level, structures might be shared or separate e.g. if L1 speaker produces L2 perfectly, except for phonetics, i.e. has lots of interference from L1 to L2 at the level of phonetics, we could model the situation as follows:

L1 L2 conceptual level single system semantics x -- y syntax x -- y morphology x -- y lexis x -- y phonology x -- y

and if L1 speaker produces phonetically correct L2, but makes lots of interference errors in grammar and word choice, we could model the situation as follows: L1 L2 conceptual level single system semantics x -- y syntax x -- y morphology x -- y lexis x -- y phonology x -- y

Of course, some languages may naturally share structures at certain levels: English-German bilinguals probably have a single set of stop consonants for both languages, but German speakers need to add the fricatives in then and thin, and English speakers need to add the fricatives in ich and ach and so on

In the simplest model, the concepts of experience run through a set of pipes and come out as either L1 or L2 (in the model Spanish and English)

The next model ignores the concepts and begins with separate tanks for the words of L1 & L2; again pipes run down, and one language spills out. (This second model corresponds to Weinreich’s “coordinate bilingual”)

In third model, the concepts of experience run through pipes representing L1 & L2, they are assigned appropriate words from either L1 or L2, and they flow into another set of pipes, representing the grammar and phonology, and finally flow out as either L1 or L2.

But, as in Weinreich, there’s no way in these models to account for interference Since there's interference between the systems, some pipes may be playing a role in both L1 & L2 systems, and the pipes must be leaky; since we can code-switch and translate, there must be leakage in both directions • It’s probably necessary to complicate the third model

The tanks of words from L1 or L2, need valves to turn them on or shut them off, representing the decision to speak either L1 or L2 and block out the other As we saw above, the words must flow into separate sets of pipes, representing the grammar, morphology and phonology of either L1 or L2 as well; but some pipes serve both L1 & L2 systems to some extent, to account for interference At all levels, we must allow leakage to explain how we can code-switch from L1 to L2

also possible: comprehension is a single system for L1 & L2, while production of L1 & L2 remains separate, because: • comprehension precedes production in acquisition • comprehension more advanced than production at all stages • though we can choose not to speak L1 or L2, we can't choose not to comprehend • production is lost before comprehension in aphasia • comprehension returns before production in aphasia

again according to Paradis, we can envision: • single coherent underlying conceptual system • two cognitively separate systems - with some shared areas in semantics, syntax, phonology one system is suppressed due to context, frequency of contact etc but word/phrase from suppressed system may intrude, especially during word search there may be differences in processing due to acquisition history, strategies etc

8. Language comprehension  means understanding what we hear and read comprehension as active search for coherence and sense based on expectations arising from context, not a passive item-by-item recording and analysis of words in a linear sequence.

meaning and real-world expectations play a more important role than grammar top-down versus bottom-up processing Until the age of four, kids interpret a-d the same way; even adults require longer to respond to c, d: a. The cat chased the mouse. b. The mouse was chased by the cat. c. The mouse chased the cat. d. The cat was chased by the mouse.

Asked to paraphrase e-g in their own words, subjects ‘normalized’ the sentences 60% of the time: e. John dressed and had a bath.f. John finished and wrote the article on the weekend.g. Don't print that or I won't sue you.

Asked if they saw any difference between g and their ‘incorrect’ paraphrase h, 53% still said no h. If you print that, I'll sue you. • clearly, the ‘Reality Principle’ guides our comprehension of linguistic structures

8.1 Comprehension of words Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP): separate, simultaneous and parallel processes work to identify words

by pronunciation: to recognize homophones leadN and ledV pst by spelling: to recognize homographs windN and windV by grammar: to recognize smell as noun or verb while hear can only function as verb by semantics: synonyms like little and small antonyms like little and big hyponyms like car versus vehicle etc

PDP can link word meanings to perceptual and functional paradigms (how a thing looks, sounds etc, what it's used for) consider Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomena you're trying to recall the word for the belief that life's events are preordained by a deity you remember that the word begins with p, then that word begins with pre-, and that it ends with -tion

Bathtub Effect: recall is best for beginnings and ends of words, like the head and feet of a person which are visible though the middle remains submerged in the tub you recall associated words like: predilection pretension Presbyterian preordained you finally come up with: predestination

Spreading activation networks: as the search progresses, more words and concepts are accessed related in various ways, including schematic knowledge e.g. the association of Presbyterian and predestination via 'religion‘

8.2 Comprehension of sentences Chomsky proposed Generative Transformational Grammar (TG) as a model ofCompetence, suggesting that psycholinguists should figure out how Performance could be related to his model Psycholinguists began to test for transformational complexity

Sentences involving more transformations like PASSIVE, NEGATION, QUESTION FORMATION etc should be harder to comprehend than sentences involving fewer transformations processing time should increase for sentences a-e: a. Judy called the boy. b. Judy didn't call the boy. c. The boy was called by Judy. d. The boy was not called by Judy. e. Wasn't the boy called by Judy?

They found that negatives were harder to process than either passives or questions, even though negation seemed like a simpler transformation Subjects seemed to have difficulty processing negatives generally. Consider the difficulty of: It's not true that Wednesday never comes after a day that isn't Tuesday.

Subjects also processed passives more easily than actives, if the passives made more sense, e.g. The struggling swimmer rescued the lifeguard. The struggling swimmer was rescued by the lifeguard. Apparently, semantics was more important than derivational complexity as predicted by TG analysis

Garden Pathing is most obvious when we have to backtrack after an unexpected switch, as in sentence a; the addition of this in sentence b, or a comma, as in sentence c, eliminates the problem a. Since Jay always jogs a mile seems like a short distance to him b. Since Jay always jogs a mile this seems like a short distance to him c. Since Jay always jogs, a mile seems like a short distance to him

Garden pathing works both syntactically and semantically. We follow expectations about constructions and meaning. Garden pathing makes it so difficult to understand sentences which seem complete and semantically simple, e.g. The horse raced past the barn fell. Compare: The horse that was raced past the barn fell.

Tests revealed other syntactic processing differences. Right-branching constructions are easy to process: This is the cat that chased the rat that stole the cheese that lay in the cupboard. Here each construction is closed before the next is added.

But left-branching constructions are difficult. The rat the cat chased stole the cheese. Left-branching requires that the listener keep the first construction open (in short-term memory) while processing the second. Adding a third makes processing impossible because of the demands it places on short-term memory. The cheese the rat the cat chased stole lay in the cupboard.

8.3 Comprehension of metaphor metaphors consist of three parts: tenor, vehicle, ground tenor vehicle billboards are warts on the landscape ground (tertium comparationis) = 'ugly protrusions on some surface'

Ortony (1975) argues that we comprehend metaphors in the same way we comprehend explicit comparisons or similes like: billboards are like warts on the landscape in both cases, we must find the appropriate ground

even in literal comparisons such as: dogs are like cats we must discover a common semantic property like 'pet' as the ground of the comparison we need only certain aspects of the word meanings In the metaphors below, different semantic aspects of butcher are dominant: the pianist is a butcher the surgeon is a butcher

This suggests that we always access just as much semantic content from the mental lexicon as we need to comprehend the sentence at hand, not complete encyclopedic information Given a metaphoric statement like: skyscrapers are the giraffes of a city we identify a ground like 'tall compared to surroundings' as part of comprehension process. And though the ground is unstated, tests show that it provides as good a cue for recall as the tenor or vehicle.

Metaphors organize our understanding of the tenor; reversing tenor and vehicle usually confuses the relation, as in: warts are billboards on the body tests show that metaphors require longer to comprehend only in isolation in appropriate contexts, metaphors require no longer than literal statements, as in: Billboards are really offensive to look at. They mess up the surrounding area. Billboards are like warts on the landscape

Within a single sentence, prior context (as in A below) is more effective than subsequent context (as in B) in triggering metaphoric interpretation: A. The night was filled with drops of molten silver B. Drops of molten silver filled the night. Apparently, understanding metaphors in context is no different from regular comprehension processes

Familiarity is also a factor in metaphor comprehension Test subjects respond fastest to familiar metaphors, e.g. Joe's the top cat around here Telecommunications are further shrinking the globe

If the vehicle of the metaphor is unfamiliar or has no single salient property, comparison is difficult and comprehension will be slow, e.g. Judy's a real platypus at work Bob's a regular isotope for politics

Metaphor may even be necessary and go unnoticed when language lacks any other word, e.g. dead metaphor: face of a clock moribund metaphor: cut into line cf. knife through the line Poetic metaphor involves anomaly, and requires extra processing time I have measured out my life with coffee spoons

but many metaphors aren't anomalous, e.g. metaphoric proverbs may be both literally true and consistent: The early bird catches the worm Like other metaphors, metaphorical proverbs seem to require no special processing in appropriate discourse contexts

8.5 Comprehending sentences • Given-New Contract (Clark & Clark 1977): • Listeners expect information in a regular pattern. • Coherent texts generally exhibit a characteristic information flow: • begin each utterance with given information • then move on to new information

e.g. The ballerina captivated a musician during her performance. The one who the ballerina captivated was the trombonist. (with the ballerina as given and the rest of the first sentence as new) In the second sentence, all the information is given, except the fact that the musician was a trombonist. Hearing the first sentence reduces processing time for the second.

If the second sentence is altered as below, listeners are confused and processing times increase. The ballerina captivated a musician during her performance. The one who captivated the trombonist was the ballerina.

Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick _____________________________________