ARE BILINGUALS LIKE TWO MONOLINGUALS IN ONE PERSON EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH IN SENTENCE PROCESSING

1
ARE BILINGUALS LIKE TWO MONOLINGUALS IN ONE
PERSON? EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCHIN SENTENCE
PROCESSING

• Eva M. Fernándezeva_fernandez_at_qc.edu
• Queens College Graduate Center ? CUNY
• CUNY Academy ? Junior Faculty Series
• November 25 ? Rosenthal Library, Room 230 ?
  Queens College

2
COLLABORATION SUPPORT

• Dianne Bradley Janet Fodor
• CUNY Graduate Center
• Elaine Klein
• Queens College Graduate Center, CUNY
• Javier Sainz Lola Oria-Merino
• Universidad Complutense de Madrid
• RISLUS Research Institute for the Study of
  Language in an Urban Society
• CUNY Graduate Center

3
BILINGUAL PROCESSING

• How do bilinguals process their two languages?
• using strategies similar to those of
  monolinguals?
• with similar timing to that of monolinguals?
• with similar accuracy when the task involves it?
• with both written and acoustic stimuli?
• Bilingual (Lx, Ly) Monolingual (Lx)
  Monolingual (Ly) ?

4
A BILINGUAL IS

• a person who can communicate efficientlyin two
  codes, Lx Ly
• a person who has
• underlying competence in Lx and Ly
• underlying differentiation of Lx and Ly

Lx
? Who did you say that _ left? ? Who did you say
_ left?
Ly
? Quién dijiste que _ se marchó? ? Quién
dijiste _ se marchó?
5
TWO COMPONENTS OR ONE?

• TWO GRAMMARS
• evidence grammaticality judgments that
  differbetween Lx Ly
• requirement grammaticality difference
• rule in Lx ? rule in Ly

• TWO PROCESSORS
• evidence processing preferences that
  differbetween Lx Ly
• requirement processing difference
• strategy in Lx ? strategy in Ly

6
MONOLINGUAL PERFORMANCE
Mary saw a gift for a boy
WORDS
Lx
SENTENCES (parser)
PROPOSITIONS
7
MONOLINGUAL PERFORMANCE
IF CROSS-LINGUISTICDIFFERENCES
María vio un regalo para un niño
Mary saw a giftfor a boy
SENTENCES (parser Lx)
SENTENCES (parser Ly)
Lx
Ly
8
BILINGUAL PERFORMANCE
TWO PARSERS?
María vio un regalo para un niño
Mary saw a giftfor a boy
SENTENCES (parser Lx)
SENTENCES (parser Ly)
Lx
Ly
STRATEGIES DEPEND ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE STIMULUS
9
BILINGUAL PERFORMANCE
OR ONE?
María vio un regalo para un niño
Mary saw a giftfor a boy
SENTENCES (parser Lx)
SENTENCES (parser Ly)
Lx
Ly
UNIFORM STRATEGIES, WITH STIMULUS IN EITHER
LANGUAGE type of strategy depends on individual
speaker variables
10
PARSING PRINCIPLES

• MINIMAL ATTACHMENT
• (Build the simplest structure)
• LATE CLOSURE / RECENCY PREFERENCE
• (Attach locally)

11
MINIMAL ATTACHMENT

• Mary saw

• Mary saw a gift for a boy

• Mary saw a gift for a boy would be a good idea.

S
VP
?
S
V
saw
building complex structure processing cost
12
LATE CLOSURE, in English

• Mary saw a gift for a boy

• Mary saw a gift for a boy in a box.

NP
PP
P
NP
for
a boy
attaching non-locally processing cost
13
LATE CLOSURE in English y en español

• María vio un regalo para un niño

• María vio un regalo para un niño en una caja.

NP
PP
NP
P
NP
un regalo
para
un niño
attaching non-locally processing cost
14
LATE CLOSURE, RECENCY PREFERENCE

• ATTACH LOCALLY
• ... a gift to a boy in a box
• in many languages
• with many constructions
• no interesting predictions for bilinguals
• bilinguals and monolinguals will all prefer
  local attachments

EXCEPTION N1 of N2 RC
15
N1 of N2 RC

• the relative clause (RC) attachment ambiguity
• structurally ambiguous RC could attach to N1 or
  N2

N1
N2
An assassin shot the maid of the actress
EN
who was on the balcony.
N1
N2
SP
Un asesino disparó a la criada de la actriz
que estaba en el balcón.
16
QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES
AMBIGUOUS TARGETS

• An assassin shot the maid of the actress who was
  on the balcony.
• Who was on the balcony? the maid the actress

low attachment (N2) preference
high attachment (N1) preference
17
QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES
AMBIGUOUS TARGETS
An assassin shot the maid of the actress who was
on the balcony. Who was on the balcony? the
maid the actress
UNAMBIGUOUS FILLERS

• Mary lent her favorite sweater to her best friend
  Susanne.
• Who borrowed a sweater? Mary Susanne

18
SPANISH high ? ENGLISH low
Un asesino disparó a la criada de la actriz que
estaba en el balcón. An assassin shot the maid of
the actress who was on the balcony.
MONOLINGUALS

• LOW ATTACHMENT
• ENGLISH, et a few al.
• Arabic
• Norwegian
• Romanian
• Swedish
• ??

• HIGH ATTACHMENT
• SPANISH, et al.
• Afrikaans, Dutch
• Brazilian Portuguese
• Bulgarian, Russian
• Croatian
• French
• German
• Greek
• ??

19
BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING
Babble babble in either language N1 P N2
RC HIGH if SDOM Babble babble in either language
N1 P N2 RC LOW if EDOM
Un asesino disparó a la criada de la actriz
que... HIGH in SP An assassin shot the maid of
the actress who LOW in EN

• BILINGUALS

• HIGH ATTACHMENT

LOW ATTACHMENT

• HIGH ATTACHMENT
• in Spanish

LOW ATTACHMENT in English

• HIGH ATTACHMENT
• if Spanish-dominant

LOW ATTACHMENT if English-dominant
LANGUAGE DEPENDENT PROCESSINGdepending on the
language of the stimulus?
LANGUAGE INDEPENDENT PROCESSING same strategies,
no matter the languagetype of strategy based on
individual speaker variables?
20
CROSS-LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES
WHY?

• Ultimate preferences are the result ofinitial
  attachments
• Spanish parser ? English parser
• Ultimate preferences are the result
  ofpost-syntactic processing
• Spanish parser English parser
• departure from (early) low attachment due to
  semantics (meaning), pragmatics (use), prosody
  (segmentation)

21
MONOLINGUAL PERFORMANCE
la criada de la actriz que
the maid of the actress that
SENTENCES (parser Lx)
SENTENCES (parser Ly)
(universal parser)
(universal parser)
POST-SYNTAX PROCESSING (pragmatics, prosody? Lx)
POST-SYNTAX PROCESSING (pragmatics, prosody? Ly)
the maid (N1) was on the balcony!
the actress (N2) was on the balcony!
22
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

• SUBJECTS
• monolingual bilingual
• MATERIALS
• English Spanish
• TASKS
• speeded on-line task (early processing)
  unspeeded off-line task (later processing)

23
SUBJECTS
24
MATERIALS

• Matrix with N of/de N in post-verbal position

The journalist interviewed the coach of the
gymnast

• Disambiguated, self-paced reading

the coach of the gymnasts that was the
coaches of the gymnast that was

• Ambiguous, questionnaire

the coach of the gymnast that was
25
MATERIALS

• Matrix with N of/de N in post-verbal position

El periodista entrevistó al entrenador del
gimnasta

• Disambiguated, self-paced reading

el entrenador de los gimnastas que estaba ...
los entrenadores del gimnasta que estaba

• Ambiguous, questionnaire

el entrenador del gimnasta que estaba
26
SELF-PACED READING TASK

• EARLY PROCESSING
• Read DISAMBIGUATED sentences
• presented in 2 frames
• followed by comprehension questions
• INDIRECT measure of preferences
• which is faster, a forced low or a forced high
  attachment?

The journalist interviewed the coach of the
gymnasts
that was signing autographs during the
competition.
Was the coach signing autographs during the
competition?
27
QUESTIONNAIRE TASK

• LATER PROCESSING
• Read AMBIGUOUS sentences
• typed on one line
• followed by question about the attachment
• DIRECT measure of preferences
• which is chosen more frequently, N2 or N1?

The journalist interviewed the coach of the
gymnast that was sick.
Who was sick? the coach
the gymnast
The dog bit the mailman and barked at the cat.
Who bit the mailman? the dog
the cat
28
ON-LINE READING TIMES MONOLINGUALS
the coaches of the gymnast
the coach of the gymnasts
29
ON-LINE READING TIMES MONOLINGUALS
main effect of Site F1 (1,72) 7.77, p lt .01 F2
(1,20) 6.15, p lt .05
Language ? Site n/s
30
OFF-LINE PREFERENCESMONOLINGUALS
the coach of the gymnast that was signing
autographs Who was signing autographs? the
coach the gymnast
the coach
the gymnast
31
OFF-LINE PREFERENCESMONOLINGUALS
main effect of Language F1 (1,44) 5.48, p lt
.025 F2 (1,10) 56.05, p lt .001
32
ON-LINE READING TIMESBILINGUALS
main effect of Site n/s F1, F2 lt 1 Site ?
Language n/s Site ? Dominance n/s Site ?
Dominance ? Language n/s
33
ON-LINE READING TIMESMONOLINGUALS BILINGUALS
34
SUBJECTS
35
OFF-LINE PREFERENCES BILINGUALS
main effect of Dominance F1 (1,40) 9.04, p lt
.005 F2 (1,20) 59.36, p lt .001
Dominance ? Language n/s
36
BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING1 1 1

• Do bilinguals process input as if they were
  monolinguals of each of their languages?
• NO

• EARLY PROCESSING
• Low attachment in English and Spanish
  monolinguals
• Bilinguals slower than monolinguals
• No attachment preferences in English/Spanish
  bilinguals

• LATER PROCESSING
• Differences in monolingual English (low) and
  Spanish (high)
• Language independent processing in bilinguals
• Strategies associated with those of monolinguals
  in the bilinguals dominant language

37
BILINGUAL SENTENCE PROCESSING
Babble babble in either language N1 P N2
RC HIGH if SDOM Babble babble in either language
N1 P N2 RC LOW if EDOM

• BILINGUALS

• HIGH ATTACHMENT

LOW ATTACHMENT

• HIGH ATTACHMENT
• if Spanish-dominant

LOW ATTACHMENT if English-dominant
LANGUAGE DEPENDENT PROCESSINGdepending on the
language of the stimulus?
X X X X LANGUAGE INDEPENDENT
PROCESSING same strategies, no matter the
languagetype of strategy based on language
dominance
38
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

• CONVERGING EVIDENCE?
• Brazilian Portuguese English bilinguals
• off-line questionnaire
• BP L1 or EN L1
• BP L1 bilinguals high in both languages
• EN L1 bilinguals low in both languages
• (Maia Maia, 2001)

39
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

• CONVERGING EVIDENCE?
• Spanish English bilinguals
• off-line questionnaire
• early acquirers of Lx Lylate acquirers of EN
  L2 or SP L2
• early acquirers no preference
• late acquirers
• EN L2 low in EN, high in SP
• SP L2 low in EN SP
• (Dussias, 2001)

40
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

• CONVERGING EVIDENCE?
• Spanish English bilinguals
• on-line self-paced reading, materials only in SP
• early acquirers of Lx Lylate acquirers of EN
  L2 or SP L2
• early acquirers no preference
• late acquirers
• EN L2 high in SP
• SP L2 trend to high in SP
• (Dussias, 2001)

41
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

• CONVERGING EVIDENCE?
• speakers of Greek as L2
• on-line self-paced reading, materials only in GK
• late acquirers of GK, L1 speakers of SP, GE, RU
• all L2 learner groups no preference
• (Papadopoulou, 2002)

42
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

• Relative Clause Attachment Preferences
• Similarity between English and Spanish in early
  processing
• Departure from low attachment preference in later
  phases of processing
• Bilingual sentence processing
• Evidence of language-independent strategy use
• Strategies resemble those of monolingual speakers
  of a bilinguals dominant language

43
REMAINING PROBLEMS

• insensitive on-line task
• did we miss the early low attachment preference
  in the bilinguals?
• or do bilinguals not engage in structurally-based
  processing strategies?
• a mystery, what drives cross-linguistic
  differences
• grammar? (unlikely, given these results)
• person-based variable lexical frequencies?
  tuning? prosody?
• circumstantial idiosyncrasies of bilinguals
• corroborate with evidence from other bilingual
  populations
• focus on language dominance other variables?
• manner and age of acquisition
• frequency of language use
• literacy, primary language of education
• etc.

44
THANK YOU!

• ?Please send questions and comments to
• Eva Fernández
• eva_fernandez_at_qc.edu
• download a copy of this presentation at
• http//www.qc.edu/efernand/papers/emf_25nov02.ppt