Walking Bilinguals Across Language Boundaries: On-line and Off-line Techniques

Part of the The Bilingual Mind and Brain Book Series book series (BMBBS, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter examines off-line and on-line methodologies used to study bilinguals. We demonstrate how methodological choices in experimental design are linked to the theoretical frameworks within which the research is cast. We illustrate how to identify appropriate methodological paradigms drawing from research on the integration of languages in bilinguals, specifically work on how bilinguals process argument structures with different restrictions in the standard grammars of their languages. We report data from Portuguese-English bilinguals and their monolingual counterparts performing three different tasks: off-line acceptability judgments using magnitude estimations, on-line self-paced reading, and sentence recall/sentence matching (i.e., providing whole sentence reading times, speech initiation times, and oral recall errors). With both on-line and off-line measures, bilinguals have different restrictions in argument structures than their monolingual counterparts, in their first language. The overall pattern suggests that these differences are rooted in grammatical representations rather than being driven by performance variables.

Keywords

Acceptability/grammaticality judgments Magnitude estimation judgments Off-line On-line Self-paced reading 

References

  1. Adams, B. C., Clifton, C., & Mitchell, D. C. (1998). Lexical guidance in sentence processing? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(2), 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bard, E., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brousseau, A.-M., & Ritter, E. (1992). A non-unified analysis of agentive verbs. In D. Bates (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 53–64). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Cambrussi, M. F. (2009). Alternância Causativa de Verbos Inergativos no Português Brasileiro [Causative alternation of inergative verbs in Brazilian Portuguese]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research, 7(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook, V. J. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–28). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, V. J. (2006). Interlanguage, multi-competence and the problem of the “second” language. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, 6(3), 39–52.Google Scholar
  10. Cruz-Ferreira, M., & Abraham, S. A. (2011). The language of language: A linguistics course for starters. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
  11. Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 179–201). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Fernández, E. M., & Cairns, H. S. (2011). Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Ferreira, F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). Introduction to the special issue on language-vision interaction. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 455–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forster, K., & Forster, J. (2003). {DMDX}: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 35(1), 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin, C. J. (2003). Psychology’s experimental foundations. In S. F. Davies (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in experimental psychology (pp. 1–23). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Grosjean, F. (2012). An attempt to isolate, and then differentiate, transfer and interference. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(1), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15(6), 409–414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Juffs, A. (2000). An overview of the second language acquisition of links between verb semantics and morpho-syntax. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 197–227). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D., & Sereno, M. I. (1999). Current approaches to mapping language in electromagnetic space. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 359–392). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. LAPD Shot. (2013). Crash blossoms. Retrieved Feb 16, 2013, from http://www.crashblossoms.com/archives/825
  26. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Loebell, H., & Bock, K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41(5), 791–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601–618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Montrul, S. (2001). Agentive verbs of manner of motion in Spanish and English as second languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(02), 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  33. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pac-Man. (2011). Jenkat Media, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.jenkatgames.com
  35. Pickering, M. J., & Van Gompel, R. P. (2006). Syntactic parsing. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 455–503). London: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sánchez-Casas, R., & García-Albea, J. E. (2005). The representation of cognate and noncognate words in bilingual memory: Can cognate status be characterized as a special kind of morphological relation? In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 226–250). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schachter, J. (1993). A new account of language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 32–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  39. Sorace, A. (2010). Using magnitude estimation in developmental linguistic research. In E. Blom & S. Unsworth (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (pp. 57–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Souza, R. A. (2011). Argument structure in L2 acquisition: Language transfer revisited in a semantics and syntax perspective. Ilha do Desterro, 60, 153–187.Google Scholar
  41. Souza, R. A. (2012). Two languages in one mind and the online processing of causatives with manner-of-motion verbs. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem (ReVEL), 10(6), 220–239.Google Scholar
  42. Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language, 87(2), 274–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
  44. Weskott, T., & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queens College and Graduate Center, City University of New YorkFlushingUSA
  2. 2.Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations