1. Week 14. Issues relating to bilingualism and general wrap-up GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

2. Code-switching Code-switching often occurs in conversations between fluent bilinguals “mixing up” the two languages. Code-switching often occurs in conversations between fluent bilinguals “mixing up” the two languages. Sometimes people distinguish between code-mixing (intra) and code-switching (inter). Sometimes people distinguish between code-mixing (intra) and code-switching (inter). We won’t distinguish here, but we’re mainly talking about intrasentential mixing. We won’t distinguish here, but we’re mainly talking about intrasentential mixing.

3. Spanish-English No, yo sí brincaba en el trampoline when I was a senior. ‘No, I did jump on the trampoline when I was a senior.’ No, yo sí brincaba en el trampoline when I was a senior. ‘No, I did jump on the trampoline when I was a senior.’ La consulta era eight dollars. ‘The office visit was eight dollars.’ La consulta era eight dollars. ‘The office visit was eight dollars.’ Well, I keep starting some. Como por un mes todos los días escribo y ya dejo. ‘Well, I keep starting some. For about a month I write everything and then I stop.’ Well, I keep starting some. Como por un mes todos los días escribo y ya dejo. ‘Well, I keep starting some. For about a month I write everything and then I stop.’

4. But it isn’t random… *El viejo man The old man *El viejo man The old man *The old hombre El hombre viejo *The old hombre El hombre viejo *The viejo hombre *The viejo hombre Certain mixes are not considered to be possible by fluent bilinguals. Certain mixes are not considered to be possible by fluent bilinguals.

5. But it isn’t random… The old manVo buuRaa aadmii The old manVo buuRaa aadmii *The buuRaa manVo old aadmii *The buuRaa manVo old aadmii *The buuRaa aadmiiVo old man *The buuRaa aadmiiVo old man *She sees lo. *She sees lo. How can we characterize what mixes are possible vs. impossible? How can we characterize what mixes are possible vs. impossible?

6. Prior efforts Several proposals have been offered to account for what are good mixes and what aren’t, but it appears to be a hard problem. Very famous attempt by Poplack (1980, 1981): Several proposals have been offered to account for what are good mixes and what aren’t, but it appears to be a hard problem. Very famous attempt by Poplack (1980, 1981): The equivalence constraint. Codes will tend to be switched at points where the surface structure of the languages map onto each other. The equivalence constraint. Codes will tend to be switched at points where the surface structure of the languages map onto each other. The free morpheme constraint. A switch may occur at any point in the discourse at which it is possible to make a surface constituent cut and still retain a free morpheme. The free morpheme constraint. A switch may occur at any point in the discourse at which it is possible to make a surface constituent cut and still retain a free morpheme.

7. Poplack Looking at the constraints on code-switching of this sorts can help us understand the nature of (at least fluent) bilingual language representation. Looking at the constraints on code-switching of this sorts can help us understand the nature of (at least fluent) bilingual language representation. One odd thing about Poplack’s constraints is that it implies that part of UG is dedicated to mixing. The Free Morpheme Constraint and Equivalence Constraint are only constraints on mixing two grammars. Is UG built specifically for bilinguals? One odd thing about Poplack’s constraints is that it implies that part of UG is dedicated to mixing. The Free Morpheme Constraint and Equivalence Constraint are only constraints on mixing two grammars. Is UG built specifically for bilinguals?

8. Problems for Poplack Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints: Accounts for *estoy eatiendo, but leaves unexplained: Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints: Accounts for *estoy eatiendo, but leaves unexplained: The students habian visto la pelicula italien. The students habian visto la pelicula italien. *The student had visto la pelicua italien. *The student had visto la pelicua italien. *Los estudiantes habian seen the Italian movie. *Los estudiantes habian seen the Italian movie. Motrataroa de nin kirescataroa n Pocajontas Ref-treat-vsf about this 3s-3os-rescue-vsf in P. ‘It deals with the one who rescues P.’ Motrataroa de nin kirescataroa n Pocajontas Ref-treat-vsf about this 3s-3os-rescue-vsf in P. ‘It deals with the one who rescues P.’

9. Problems for Poplack? *El no wants to go *El no wants to go *He doesn’t quiere ir. *He doesn’t quiere ir. *No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’) *No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’) Amo estoy trabajando not be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’ Amo estoy trabajando not be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’

10. Problems for Poplack *Tú tikoas tlakemetl 2sg 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘You will buy clothes’) *Tú tikoas tlakemetl 2sg 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘You will buy clothes’) El kikoas tlakmetl he 3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf ‘He will buy clothes’ El kikoas tlakmetl he 3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf ‘He will buy clothes’

11. MacSwan 1999 Perhaps the most currently comprehensive and promising account, building on recent developments in syntactic theory. Perhaps the most currently comprehensive and promising account, building on recent developments in syntactic theory. One of the basic premises is that language parameters are properties of lexical items (not of a language-wide grammar). E.g., verb-movement is due to a property of the tense morpheme in French, not shared by the tense morpheme in English. One of the basic premises is that language parameters are properties of lexical items (not of a language-wide grammar). E.g., verb-movement is due to a property of the tense morpheme in French, not shared by the tense morpheme in English.

12. MacSwan 1999 The broad (“minimalist”) approach to grammar takes language to consist of two primary components. The broad (“minimalist”) approach to grammar takes language to consist of two primary components. Computational system (builds trees), language invariant. Computational system (builds trees), language invariant. Lexicon, language particular. Functional elements of the lexicon encode the parameters of variation. Lexicon, language particular. Functional elements of the lexicon encode the parameters of variation.

13. MacSwan 1999 MacSwan’s proposal is that there are no constraints on code mixing over and above constraints found on monolingual sentences. MacSwan’s proposal is that there are no constraints on code mixing over and above constraints found on monolingual sentences. (His only constraint which obliquely refers to code mixing is the one we turn to next, roughly that within a word, the language must be coherent.) (His only constraint which obliquely refers to code mixing is the one we turn to next, roughly that within a word, the language must be coherent.) We can determine what are possible mixes by looking at the properties of the (functional elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed languages. We can determine what are possible mixes by looking at the properties of the (functional elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed languages.

14. MacSwan 1999 The model of code mixing is then just like monolingual speech—the only difference being that the words and functional elements are not always drawn from the lexicon belonging to a single language. The model of code mixing is then just like monolingual speech—the only difference being that the words and functional elements are not always drawn from the lexicon belonging to a single language. Where requirements conflict between languages is where mixing will be prohibited. Where requirements conflict between languages is where mixing will be prohibited.

15. Clitics, bound morphemes Some lexical items in some languages are clitics, they depend (usually phonologically) on neighboring words. Similar to the concept of bound morpheme. Some lexical items in some languages are clitics, they depend (usually phonologically) on neighboring words. Similar to the concept of bound morpheme. John’s book. John’s book. I shouldn’t go. I shouldn’t go. Clitics essentially fuse with their host. Clitics essentially fuse with their host.

16. Clitics, bound morphemes Clitics generally cannot be stressed. Clitics generally cannot be stressed. *John’S book *John’S book *I couldN’T go. *I couldN’T go. Clitics generally form an inseparable unit with their host. Clitics generally form an inseparable unit with their host. Shouldn’t I go? Shouldn’t I go? Should I not go? Should I not go? *Should I n’t go? *Should I n’t go?

17. Spanish no It turns out that Spanish no appears to be a clitic (despite spelling conventions). It turns out that Spanish no appears to be a clitic (despite spelling conventions). ¿Qué no dijo Juan? ‘What didn’t J say?’ ¿Qué no dijo Juan? ‘What didn’t J say?’ *¿Qué sólo leyó Juan? (‘What did J only read?’) *¿Qué sólo leyó Juan? (‘What did J only read?’) *¿Qué meramente leyó Juan? (‘What did J merely read?’) *¿Qué meramente leyó Juan? (‘What did J merely read?’) *Juan no ha no hecho la tarea. (‘J hasn’t not done the task.’) *Juan no ha no hecho la tarea. (‘J hasn’t not done the task.’)

18. Nahuatl amo In Nahuatl, amo ‘not’ does not appear to be a clitic. In Nahuatl, amo ‘not’ does not appear to be a clitic. Amo nio amo niktati nowelti. Not 1s-go not 1s-3Os-see my-sister ‘I’m not going to not see my sister.’ Amo nio amo niktati nowelti. Not 1s-go not 1s-3Os-see my-sister ‘I’m not going to not see my sister.’

19. Spanish-Nahuatl mixing *No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’) *No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’) Amo estoy trabajando not be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’ Amo estoy trabajando not be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’ Now, we can begin to make sense of the difference in possible mixes at the point of negation between Spanish and Nahuatl. Now, we can begin to make sense of the difference in possible mixes at the point of negation between Spanish and Nahuatl.

20. MacSwan 1999 MacSwan proposes essentially that it is not possible to code-mix within a (word-like) phonological unit. Essentially a restriction on what are “pronouncable” trees. MacSwan proposes essentially that it is not possible to code-mix within a (word-like) phonological unit. Essentially a restriction on what are “pronouncable” trees. Idea: phonology operates as a set of ordered rules which are ordered differently in different languages—you can’t run both sets of rules at once, hence the result if you tried would be unpronounceable. Idea: phonology operates as a set of ordered rules which are ordered differently in different languages—you can’t run both sets of rules at once, hence the result if you tried would be unpronounceable. Since Spanish no fuses with the following verb, it can’t be followed by a Nahuatl verb. Since Spanish no fuses with the following verb, it can’t be followed by a Nahuatl verb. Since Nahuatl amo does not fuse with the following verb, it is free to be followed by a Spanish verb. Since Nahuatl amo does not fuse with the following verb, it is free to be followed by a Spanish verb.

21. English-Spanish This also explains Spanish-English (well, Spanish-anything) This also explains Spanish-English (well, Spanish-anything) *El no wants to go *El no wants to go What about English-Spanish? What about English-Spanish? *He doesn’t quiere ir. *He doesn’t quiere ir. *He doesn’t wants to go. *He doesn’t wants to go.

22. Agreement In languages that code agreement between subject and verb, it also appears that mixing is only possible where the agreement relationship is not disrupted. In languages that code agreement between subject and verb, it also appears that mixing is only possible where the agreement relationship is not disrupted. *He doesn’t quiere ir. *He doesn’t quiere ir. English negation: agreement appears on do. English negation: agreement appears on do. Spanish negation: agreement appears on the verb. Spanish negation: agreement appears on the verb. You can’t have extra agreement: one subject, one agreement. They need to match. You can’t have extra agreement: one subject, one agreement. They need to match.

23. Agreement *Yo nikoas tlakemetl I 1s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘I will buy clothes’) *Yo nikoas tlakemetl I 1s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘I will buy clothes’) *Tú tikoas tlakemetl you 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘You will buy clothes’) *Tú tikoas tlakemetl you 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf (‘You will buy clothes’) Él/Ella kikoas tlakemetl He/She 3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf ‘He/She will buy clothes’ Él/Ella kikoas tlakemetl He/She 3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf ‘He/She will buy clothes’

24. Agreement Ni-k-koa-s ‘I will buy’ Ni-k-koa-s ‘I will buy’ Ti-k-koa-s ‘You will buy’ Ti-k-koa-s ‘You will buy’ Ø-k(i)-koa-s ‘He/she wlll buy’ Ø-k(i)-koa-s ‘He/she wlll buy’ Also relevant: Spanish marks and agrees with gender but Nahuatl does not distinguish masculine from feminine. Also relevant: Spanish marks and agrees with gender but Nahuatl does not distinguish masculine from feminine. Spanish pronouns have gender specification. The Nahuatl verb does not. They can only be compatible (match) if there is no Nahuatl agreement morpheme. Spanish pronouns have gender specification. The Nahuatl verb does not. They can only be compatible (match) if there is no Nahuatl agreement morpheme.

25. Spanish-Catalan-Greek Spanish and Catalan both have two genders, masculine and feminine. Spanish and Catalan both have two genders, masculine and feminine. Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine, neuter. Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine, neuter. Predicts: Mixing subjects and verbs between the three languages is only possible between the gender-compatible languages. Predicts: Mixing subjects and verbs between the three languages is only possible between the gender-compatible languages.

26. Spanish-Catalan-Greek Yo vull mengar el dinar (S-C) Yo vull mengar el dinar (S-C) Jo queiro comer la cena (C-S) Jo queiro comer la cena (C-S) *Ego vull mengar el dinar (G-C) *Ego vull mengar el dinar (G-C) *Ego queiro comer la cena (G-S) *Ego queiro comer la cena (G-S) …

27. Mixing and L2A? Code mixing as discussed so far is generally a property of the speech of fluent bilinguals (often native bilinguals) and reflects properties of universal language knowledge. Code mixing as discussed so far is generally a property of the speech of fluent bilinguals (often native bilinguals) and reflects properties of universal language knowledge. We can now return to our old question and ask: Does the knowledge of second language learners also have the restrictions on code mixing? To the extent that this is “part of UG”, is this aspect of UG active for L2’ers? We can now return to our old question and ask: Does the knowledge of second language learners also have the restrictions on code mixing? To the extent that this is “part of UG”, is this aspect of UG active for L2’ers?

28. Toribio & Rubin Beginning, intermediate, and advanced learners of Spanish (English L1), asked to imitate code- mixed utterances. Beginning, intermediate, and advanced learners of Spanish (English L1), asked to imitate code- mixed utterances. Beginning: Processing errors everywhere. Beginning: Processing errors everywhere. Intermediate: Repeated everything equally fluently. Intermediate: Repeated everything equally fluently. Advanced: Repeated good mixes fluently, tripped up or unknowingly corrected improper mixes. Advanced: Repeated good mixes fluently, tripped up or unknowingly corrected improper mixes. Looks like the constraints emerge, but intermediates are probably translating to L1 and doing any judgments there. Looks like the constraints emerge, but intermediates are probably translating to L1 and doing any judgments there.

29. Bhatia & Ritchie (1996) ±Us ne kahaa that he will go there. ±Us ne kahaa that he will go there. Us ne kahaa ki he will go there. Us ne kahaa ki he will go there. *Us ne kahaa that vo vahãã jaay-egaa. *Us ne kahaa that vo vahãã jaay-egaa. ±He said ki vo vahãã jaay-egaa. ±He said ki vo vahãã jaay-egaa. He said that vo vahãã jaay-egaa. He said that vo vahãã jaay-egaa. *He said ki he will go there. *He said ki he will go there. Conclusion was that intermediate and advanced learners do have (access to) the constraints. Beginning learners showed very little sensitivity to contrasts. Conclusion was that intermediate and advanced learners do have (access to) the constraints. Beginning learners showed very little sensitivity to contrasts.

30. So… Code switching/mixing is quite systematic, and moreover quite normal behavior for fluent bilinguals. Code switching/mixing is quite systematic, and moreover quite normal behavior for fluent bilinguals. It also gives us hints about how languages are represented, to what degrees they’re kept separate. It also gives us hints about how languages are represented, to what degrees they’re kept separate.

31. Anomic aphasia Loss of ability to retrieve words from memory, happens with almost any kind of aphasia (often with other more severe consequences), early dementia, healthy tired individuals… Loss of ability to retrieve words from memory, happens with almost any kind of aphasia (often with other more severe consequences), early dementia, healthy tired individuals… Words are not equally susceptible— there’s a systematicity to the errors. Words are not equally susceptible— there’s a systematicity to the errors.

32. Anomic aphasia Content words (boat) are more susceptible than function words (the). Content words (boat) are more susceptible than function words (the). Infrequent words are more susceptible than frequent words. Infrequent words are more susceptible than frequent words. Proper nouns are more susceptible than common nouns. Proper nouns are more susceptible than common nouns. Sometime semantic classes go as a block (color words, letters, numbers). Sometime semantic classes go as a block (color words, letters, numbers).

33. Regression There’s an old idea sometimes referred to as “the rule of Ribot” (dating back to the 1880s) that the newest things learned are the most vulnerable to attrition (Freud adopted this view, calling it “regression”, a return to earlier stages, Jakobsen claimed the same thing). There’s an old idea sometimes referred to as “the rule of Ribot” (dating back to the 1880s) that the newest things learned are the most vulnerable to attrition (Freud adopted this view, calling it “regression”, a return to earlier stages, Jakobsen claimed the same thing). But an aphasic who says Baby cry is not as happy with it as an infant. But an aphasic who says Baby cry is not as happy with it as an infant.

34. Aphasias Broca’s nonfluent cmpr ok rep poor Wernicke’s fluent cmpr poor rep poor conduction fluent cmpr ok rep poor anomic fluent cmpr ok rep ok transcortical sensory nonfluent cmpr poor rep poor transcortical motor nonfluent cmpr ok rep ok

35. How about multiple languages? What about a second language? What about a second language? Are the same brain areas used for both L1 and L2? Or are they different? Or do they overlap? Are the same brain areas used for both L1 and L2? Or are they different? Or do they overlap?

36. Recovery from aphasia When a bilingual suffers from an aphasia, several things can happen during recovery (assuming recovery) When a bilingual suffers from an aphasia, several things can happen during recovery (assuming recovery) Parallel recovery Parallel recovery Differential recovery Differential recovery L1 recovers faster (“Ribot’s law”—old before new) L1 recovers faster (“Ribot’s law”—old before new) L2 recovers faster (“Pitres’ law”—frequent first) L2 recovers faster (“Pitres’ law”—frequent first) Recovery generally implies that the actual language centers haven’t been destroyed, only either cut off or inhibited. Recovery generally implies that the actual language centers haven’t been destroyed, only either cut off or inhibited.

37. Recovery from aphasia The fact that L1 and L2 can recover independently implies that they are at least in part differentially represented in the brain. The fact that L1 and L2 can recover independently implies that they are at least in part differentially represented in the brain. Case: Dimitrijevic (1940): Woman grew up in Bulgaria, Yiddish home language, moved to Belgrade at 34 and spoke Serbian (and Yiddish) from then on, “forgetting” Bulgarian. A brain injury at 60, after two months for recovery, resulted in her only being able to speak Bulgarian and Yiddish; she could no longer speak Serbian (though she could understand it), despite it having been her dominant language for 25 years. Case: Dimitrijevic (1940): Woman grew up in Bulgaria, Yiddish home language, moved to Belgrade at 34 and spoke Serbian (and Yiddish) from then on, “forgetting” Bulgarian. A brain injury at 60, after two months for recovery, resulted in her only being able to speak Bulgarian and Yiddish; she could no longer speak Serbian (though she could understand it), despite it having been her dominant language for 25 years.

38. Second language recovery Almost 1/3 of reported multilingual aphasics do not recover their L1, but their L2 (L3, …). Almost 1/3 of reported multilingual aphasics do not recover their L1, but their L2 (L3, …). Case: Minkowski (1928). Patient’s L1 was Swiss German, learned standard German in school, moved to France for 6 years, became fluent in French, then moved back to Switzerland (using SG, though still reading French). 19 years later, had a stroke. After 3 days for 3 weeks spoke only (increasingly fluent) French, then started recovering German, but for 6 months was incapable of using SG. Around Christmas, suddenly SG returned (to the detriment of French). Case: Minkowski (1928). Patient’s L1 was Swiss German, learned standard German in school, moved to France for 6 years, became fluent in French, then moved back to Switzerland (using SG, though still reading French). 19 years later, had a stroke. After 3 days for 3 weeks spoke only (increasingly fluent) French, then started recovering German, but for 6 months was incapable of using SG. Around Christmas, suddenly SG returned (to the detriment of French).

39. Factors involved in L2 recovery? Minkowski’s idea is that the languages are not really spatially separated, but that they exert mutual inhibition in a fairly delicate balance. A lesion will disrupt that balance and can suppress a language (including L1). Minkowski’s idea is that the languages are not really spatially separated, but that they exert mutual inhibition in a fairly delicate balance. A lesion will disrupt that balance and can suppress a language (including L1). In support, often “lost” languages can be recovered faster than usually required to “learn from scratch”. In support, often “lost” languages can be recovered faster than usually required to “learn from scratch”. Also, autopsy studies don’t seem to reveal a larger extent to Broca’s area in polyglots (Sauerwin, spoke 54 languages both at poetry and prose level; normal extent and development in Broca’s area) Also, autopsy studies don’t seem to reveal a larger extent to Broca’s area in polyglots (Sauerwin, spoke 54 languages both at poetry and prose level; normal extent and development in Broca’s area)

40. Factors involved in L2 recovery? Familiarity often is the determining factor. Familiarity often is the determining factor. Conscious vs. unconscious knowledge. Conscious vs. unconscious knowledge. Psychological, emotional factors. Psychological, emotional factors. Language spoken to patient in hospital. Language spoken to patient in hospital. Domain-specific (rote) language Domain-specific (rote) language Higher inhibition levels between closely- related languages. Higher inhibition levels between closely- related languages.

41. Recovery of non-communication languages Case: Grasset (1884). Patient knew only French (never studied other languages), but then had a stroke and after a few days, began speaking only Latin (single words only, primarily prayer- related). Case: Grasset (1884). Patient knew only French (never studied other languages), but then had a stroke and after a few days, began speaking only Latin (single words only, primarily prayer- related). Case: Pötzl (1925). Professor who knew several modern languages as well as classical Greek and Latin. After a stroke, he was only able to express himself in the dead languages, which he only knew through reading. Case: Pötzl (1925). Professor who knew several modern languages as well as classical Greek and Latin. After a stroke, he was only able to express himself in the dead languages, which he only knew through reading.

42. Paradoxical recovery Case: Paradis & Goldblum (1989). L1 Gujarati, from Madagascar (spoke Malagasy), learned French in school. After brain surgery, tested fine in French but was having trouble with Gujarati at home—fairly classic Broca’s aphasia symptoms. Malagasy was fine. Over following months, Gujarati was recovered, but at the expense of Malagasy. 2 years later, Gujarati was fine, Malagasy was impaired. 4 years later, both were fine. Case: Paradis & Goldblum (1989). L1 Gujarati, from Madagascar (spoke Malagasy), learned French in school. After brain surgery, tested fine in French but was having trouble with Gujarati at home—fairly classic Broca’s aphasia symptoms. Malagasy was fine. Over following months, Gujarati was recovered, but at the expense of Malagasy. 2 years later, Gujarati was fine, Malagasy was impaired. 4 years later, both were fine. Suggests differential inhibition (rather than localization). Suggests differential inhibition (rather than localization).

43. Switching and mixing Healthy bilinguals speaking to other bilinguals will often code-mix or code-switch. Healthy bilinguals speaking to other bilinguals will often code-mix or code-switch. Aphasic bilinguals sometimes mix unconsciously without regard to the normal conversational triggers of code-mixing (often using multiple languages in conversation with monolingual speakers). Aphasic bilinguals sometimes mix unconsciously without regard to the normal conversational triggers of code-mixing (often using multiple languages in conversation with monolingual speakers). Or, they will show fixation on one language, responding only in one language regardless of the language in which they are addressed. Or, they will show fixation on one language, responding only in one language regardless of the language in which they are addressed.

44. Alternating antagonism More dramatic cases reported where patients switch week by week or day by day between near-total control and near- absent control of one language, in complementary distribution to another. More dramatic cases reported where patients switch week by week or day by day between near-total control and near- absent control of one language, in complementary distribution to another. Case: Bruce (1895): Welsh/English (Welsh, left handed, demented, docile; English, right handed, restless and destructive). Alternated sometimes several times per day. Case: Bruce (1895): Welsh/English (Welsh, left handed, demented, docile; English, right handed, restless and destructive). Alternated sometimes several times per day. Bruce proposed this was due to differential hemispheric dominance; later supported by studies of subjects with severed corpus callosum. Suggested left hemisphere was home of abstract (instructable) capacities. Bruce proposed this was due to differential hemispheric dominance; later supported by studies of subjects with severed corpus callosum. Suggested left hemisphere was home of abstract (instructable) capacities.

45. Translation Aphasic deficits in translation capabilities suggest translation might be a separate system. Aphasic deficits in translation capabilities suggest translation might be a separate system. Reported cases of loss of ability to translate (but retaining some abilities in each language). Reported cases of loss of ability to translate (but retaining some abilities in each language). Other reported cases of loss of ability not to translate; Case: Perecman (1984): patient would always spontaneously translate German (L1) sentences uttered into English (L2) immediate afterward, yet could not perform translation task on request. Other reported cases of loss of ability not to translate; Case: Perecman (1984): patient would always spontaneously translate German (L1) sentences uttered into English (L2) immediate afterward, yet could not perform translation task on request.

46. Translation Sometimes this can happen even without comprehension; Case: Veyrac (1931): patient (English L1, French dominant L2), could not understand simple instructions in French, but when instructed in English would spontaneously translate them to French and then fail to carry them out. Sometimes this can happen even without comprehension; Case: Veyrac (1931): patient (English L1, French dominant L2), could not understand simple instructions in French, but when instructed in English would spontaneously translate them to French and then fail to carry them out.

47. Paradoxical translation Case: Paradis et al. (1982). Patient switched (by day) between producing Arabic and producing French. When producing only Arabic, she could only translate from Arabic into French; when producing only French, she could only translate from French into Arabic. Case: Paradis et al. (1982). Patient switched (by day) between producing Arabic and producing French. When producing only Arabic, she could only translate from Arabic into French; when producing only French, she could only translate from French into Arabic.

48. Bilingual representation A number of dissociated phenomena in bilingual aphasia studies. A number of dissociated phenomena in bilingual aphasia studies. Sometimes only one language returns, not always L1 Sometimes only one language returns, not always L1 production and comprehension and translation seem to be separable, and even by language. production and comprehension and translation seem to be separable, and even by language. Monolingual aphasia studies seem to correlate lesion localization with function. Monolingual aphasia studies seem to correlate lesion localization with function. Not much evidence for localization differences between multiple languages per se. Not much evidence for localization differences between multiple languages per se. Some evidence for localization differences between types of learning? (written, conscious vs. unconscious, implicit vs. explicit memory?) Some evidence for localization differences between types of learning? (written, conscious vs. unconscious, implicit vs. explicit memory?)

49. Bilingual representation Given the postmortem studies showing no real morphological differences between monolinguals and polyglots, the most consistent picture seems to be one of shared neural architecture with inhibition between languages. Given the postmortem studies showing no real morphological differences between monolinguals and polyglots, the most consistent picture seems to be one of shared neural architecture with inhibition between languages. Choice of language A inhibits access to grammar, vocabulary of language B during production. Choice of language A inhibits access to grammar, vocabulary of language B during production. Comprehension is often spared even in the face of production inability, suggesting that the same kind of inhibition does not hold of comprehension. Comprehension is often spared even in the face of production inability, suggesting that the same kind of inhibition does not hold of comprehension.

50. Bilingual representation Many of the aphasic symptoms in production can be described in terms of changing inhibitions; the lesion disrupts the balance of inhibition and excitation between neural structures, leading to: Many of the aphasic symptoms in production can be described in terms of changing inhibitions; the lesion disrupts the balance of inhibition and excitation between neural structures, leading to: loss of inhibition (pathological mixing) loss of inhibition (pathological mixing) heightened invariant inhibition (fixation) heightened invariant inhibition (fixation) shifting inhibition (alternating antagonism) shifting inhibition (alternating antagonism) psychological inhibition (repression) psychological inhibition (repression)

51. Subsystems There also seem to be several subsystems which can be individually impaired. There also seem to be several subsystems which can be individually impaired. Naming, concepts Naming, concepts Fluency of production Fluency of production Ability to retain and repeat Ability to retain and repeat Translation from L1 to L2 Translation from L1 to L2 Translation from L2 to L1 Translation from L2 to L1 Some of these seem to correlate with localization differences. Some of these seem to correlate with localization differences.

52. More modern methods and results Recording electrical activity in the brain can also help us see which parts are used in language tasks Recording electrical activity in the brain can also help us see which parts are used in language tasks Electroencephalogram (EEG) Electroencephalogram (EEG) Event-related potentials (ERP). Event-related potentials (ERP). Magnetoencephalogram (MEG) Magnetoencephalogram (MEG) Functional brain imaging Functional brain imaging Computer axial tomography (CT) (X-rays) Computer axial tomography (CT) (X-rays) Positron emission tomography (PET) Positron emission tomography (PET) Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)

53. MEG

54. ex. Pylkkänen, Stringfellow, Kelepir, & Marantz (2000) BELL RT stimulus M180: A visual response unaffected by stimulus properties such as frequency (Hackl et al, 2000), repetition (Sekiguchi et al, 2000, Pylkkänen et al 2000) and phonotactic probability/density. Clearly posterior dipolar pattern. M250: A component between the M180 and M350. Also insensitive to variations in stimulus properties that affect lexical access. Clearly distinct from the M350 as these two responses have opposite polarities. Processing of orthographic forms? M350: The first MEG component sensitive to manipulations of stimulus properties affecting lexical activation. Working hypothesis: this component reflects automatic spreading activation of the lexicon – at signal maximum all the competitors are activated. Postlexical processes including the word/nonword decision of the lexical decision task.

55. More modern methods and results Wada test. Sodium amytal causing temporary neural paralysis can simulate a possible aphasia (in order to avoid it during neurosurgery). Wada test. Sodium amytal causing temporary neural paralysis can simulate a possible aphasia (in order to avoid it during neurosurgery). Electrical stimulation. Similar but shorter term, more localized. Electrical stimulation. Similar but shorter term, more localized. Results are mainly in line with other knowledge, but the problem with these tests is that a) electrical stimulation is hard to repeat (imprecise), b) both methods can only be used on people waiting for neurosurgery who may have abnormal brains. Results are mainly in line with other knowledge, but the problem with these tests is that a) electrical stimulation is hard to repeat (imprecise), b) both methods can only be used on people waiting for neurosurgery who may have abnormal brains.

56. Ojemann & Whitaker 1978 Dutch inhibited English inhibited Both inhibited Neither inhibited For what it’s worth…

57. Differences: bilingual and monolingual representations Best guess at this point is that there is overlap— the several languages make partial use of physiologically distinct areas of the brain, but also share a lot in common. Best guess at this point is that there is overlap— the several languages make partial use of physiologically distinct areas of the brain, but also share a lot in common. Some evidence that second language has a right-hemisphere component, more diffuse than first language, although directly contradictory findings have also been reported. Some evidence that second language has a right-hemisphere component, more diffuse than first language, although directly contradictory findings have also been reported. The state of things is actually a little bit disappointing—but it turns out to be hard work..! The state of things is actually a little bit disappointing—but it turns out to be hard work..!

58. End of the semester Wrap up & Take-Home Points

59. Some major views on L1A/syntax Radford/Guilfoyle/Noonan: kids lack functional elements initially, have only lexical elements. Radford/Guilfoyle/Noonan: kids lack functional elements initially, have only lexical elements. Wexler: kids have access to all the same grammatical elements that adults do. Wexler: kids have access to all the same grammatical elements that adults do. Rizzi: kids have “truncated trees” Rizzi: kids have “truncated trees” Vainikka: kids “grow trees” Vainikka: kids “grow trees”

60. L1A: Case errors Kids will sometimes make case errors with the subject (until around 2). Kids will sometimes make case errors with the subject (until around 2). Me got bean. Me got bean. In English, accusative (me) is the “default.” In English, accusative (me) is the “default.” Very often taken to indicate a subject not in SpecIP (a.k.a. SpecAgrSP). No IP? (Radford) Sometimes IP and above (Rizzi, Vainikka)? No AgrSP? (Wexler) Very often taken to indicate a subject not in SpecIP (a.k.a. SpecAgrSP). No IP? (Radford) Sometimes IP and above (Rizzi, Vainikka)? No AgrSP? (Wexler)

61. L1A: Null subjects Kids will also often drop out subjects, even in languages where null subjects are not allowed. Kids will also often drop out subjects, even in languages where null subjects are not allowed. Hyams (1986): Mis-set parameter; they’re speaking Italian initially. Hyams (1986): Mis-set parameter; they’re speaking Italian initially. Kids who are learning null subject languages drop more subjects than kids who are learning non-null subject languages. Kids who are learning null subject languages drop more subjects than kids who are learning non-null subject languages. Bloom: Long sentences are harder, drop what you can. The beginning of a sentence is more susceptible. Bloom: Long sentences are harder, drop what you can. The beginning of a sentence is more susceptible. Wexler/Hyams: Kids drop more subjects with nonfinite verbs. PRO. Sometimes topic drop with finite verbs, where “topic” isn’t yet grasped. Wexler/Hyams: Kids drop more subjects with nonfinite verbs. PRO. Sometimes topic drop with finite verbs, where “topic” isn’t yet grasped.

62. L1A: Optional Infinitives In many languages, kids will allow nonfinite verbs in root clauses sometimes, early on (up to a little after 2). In many languages, kids will allow nonfinite verbs in root clauses sometimes, early on (up to a little after 2). NS/OI? Wexler (1998) suggests that there’s a strong correlation between lack of OI’s in 2-year-old speech and being a null subject language. NS/OI? Wexler (1998) suggests that there’s a strong correlation between lack of OI’s in 2-year-old speech and being a null subject language. True? Or are OI’s just extra-rare in null subject languages (correlation with more elaborate inflection?). True? Or are OI’s just extra-rare in null subject languages (correlation with more elaborate inflection?).

63. L1A: Finite vs. nonfinite During Optional Infinitive stage, kids with OI’s treat finite verbs like finite verbs and nonfinite verbs like nonfinite verbs. During Optional Infinitive stage, kids with OI’s treat finite verbs like finite verbs and nonfinite verbs like nonfinite verbs. German (Poeppel & Wexler): V2 for finite verbs, final V for nonfinite verbs. German (Poeppel & Wexler): V2 for finite verbs, final V for nonfinite verbs. French (Pierce): Verb before pas for finite verbs, verb after pas for nonfinite verbs. French (Pierce): Verb before pas for finite verbs, verb after pas for nonfinite verbs.

64. Some stories about OIs Rizzi: until maturation of Root=CP, trees truncated sometimes below tense. Rizzi: until maturation of Root=CP, trees truncated sometimes below tense. Wexler/Schütze: Syntax intact, but something prohibits the same (subject) DP from licensing both TP (finite tense) and AgrP (Nom case). Wexler/Schütze: Syntax intact, but something prohibits the same (subject) DP from licensing both TP (finite tense) and AgrP (Nom case). Radford: Kids don’t use functional categories at this point (yet, leaves the “finite verbs act finite” data unexplained). Radford: Kids don’t use functional categories at this point (yet, leaves the “finite verbs act finite” data unexplained). Legendre et al: Kids minimize the number of functional projections, basically same outcome as Schütze & Wexler. Legendre et al: Kids minimize the number of functional projections, basically same outcome as Schütze & Wexler.

65. L1A: Principles B and P Even older kids seem to allow co- reference in apparent violation of Principle B: Mary saw her. Even older kids seem to allow co- reference in apparent violation of Principle B: Mary saw her. Chien & Wexler, then Thornton & Wexler, show that when quantifier binding is available (and thus requires coindexation), Principle B is respected. Chien & Wexler, then Thornton & Wexler, show that when quantifier binding is available (and thus requires coindexation), Principle B is respected. Principle P is slow in coming (matures?), which says coreference --> coindexation. Principle P is slow in coming (matures?), which says coreference --> coindexation.

66. L1A: A-chains, passives Kids are also purportedly slow to master passives and unaccusatives. Kids are also purportedly slow to master passives and unaccusatives. Borer & Wexler (1987): This is maturation of the ability to represent “A-chains”—more specifically, the ability to move an object-type thing into a subject-type position (non-local assignment of  -roles). Borer & Wexler (1987): This is maturation of the ability to represent “A-chains”—more specifically, the ability to move an object-type thing into a subject-type position (non-local assignment of  -roles). Babyonyshev et al. (1998) show kids have trouble with the genitive of negation. Babyonyshev et al. (1998) show kids have trouble with the genitive of negation.

67. L1A: A-chains etc. Some possible reasons for skepticism on this: Some possible reasons for skepticism on this: Snyder, Hyams, Crisma (1994): French kids get auxiliary selection right with reflexive clitics: Snyder, Hyams, Crisma (1994): French kids get auxiliary selection right with reflexive clitics: Le chien j s i ’est [ t i mordu t j ]. Le chien j s i ’est [ t i mordu t j ]. VP-internal subjects VP-internal subjects Korean negation misplacement seems to differentiate unergative/transitive from unaccusatives. Korean negation misplacement seems to differentiate unergative/transitive from unaccusatives.

68. L1A: Negation outside of IP Kids for a while seem to have trouble with negation outside the IP, and repair their utterances so that it remains inside (usually in an adult-ungrammatical way). Kids for a while seem to have trouble with negation outside the IP, and repair their utterances so that it remains inside (usually in an adult-ungrammatical way). What kind of bread do you don’t like? What kind of bread do you don’t like? Where he couldn’t eat the raisins? Where he couldn’t eat the raisins?

69. L1A: Syntax In general, the errors kids are making seem to be very systematic. In general, the errors kids are making seem to be very systematic. They seem to know many aspects of the grammatical system, allowing us to pinpoint (if we look closely enough and ask the right questions) what parts don’t seem to be working. They seem to know many aspects of the grammatical system, allowing us to pinpoint (if we look closely enough and ask the right questions) what parts don’t seem to be working. A-chains (or “dethematization of an external arg.”). A-chains (or “dethematization of an external arg.”). Using a [D] feature twice to check functional features. Using a [D] feature twice to check functional features. Allowing negation in C. Allowing negation in C. Requiring coreference to imply coindexation. Requiring coreference to imply coindexation.

70. L2A: What can we say? Certain things are required to explain L1A. Certain things are required to explain L1A. Kids don’t get negative evidence Kids don’t get negative evidence or if they do, it is inconsistent, it is noisy, and moreover sometimes when we try to give them negative evidence, they ignore it. or if they do, it is inconsistent, it is noisy, and moreover sometimes when we try to give them negative evidence, they ignore it. The kids must be able to learn a system that assign * to some sentences, based only on positive evidence. The kids must be able to learn a system that assign * to some sentences, based only on positive evidence. Conclusion: Universal Grammar constrains the kinds of languages there can be, those languages cannot generate certain kinds of sentences (hence: *). Conclusion: Universal Grammar constrains the kinds of languages there can be, those languages cannot generate certain kinds of sentences (hence: *).

71. L2A: What can we say? L1A: Languages differ from one another. L1A: Languages differ from one another. Something needs to be learned from the environment. Something needs to be learned from the environment. Yet much of the grammatical system seems common across languages. Yet much of the grammatical system seems common across languages. Languages can be thought of as varying not in the system (the principles) but in the parameters. Languages can be thought of as varying not in the system (the principles) but in the parameters. The kids, who learn their native language so fast, must have some help setting the parameters. A Language Acquisition Device (LAD) designed to choose among the options made available by UG. The kids, who learn their native language so fast, must have some help setting the parameters. A Language Acquisition Device (LAD) designed to choose among the options made available by UG.

72. L2A: What can we say? L2A is generally much harder, more conscious, slower, less successful. L2A is generally much harder, more conscious, slower, less successful. What’s different about L2A? Did UG disappear? Did the LAD disappear? What’s different about L2A? Did UG disappear? Did the LAD disappear? Question: What is the state of the L2’ers knowledge about the L2? Question: What is the state of the L2’ers knowledge about the L2? Does this conform to what UG would allow? Does this conform to what UG would allow?

73. L2A: UG-accessibility In general, it seems that the evidence points to the interlanguages being allowable human languages. This could either be influence from UG (constraining possible languages) or because the IL is a variation on L1. In general, it seems that the evidence points to the interlanguages being allowable human languages. This could either be influence from UG (constraining possible languages) or because the IL is a variation on L1. Can we tell? Look at parameter settings: Does IL represent a different option from L1? Can we tell? Look at parameter settings: Does IL represent a different option from L1?

74. L2A: Transfer If the IL is UG-constrained, what is the initial starting assumption? If the IL is UG-constrained, what is the initial starting assumption? Is it some kind of general default setting for all the parameters (likely to be a “subset” grammar from which all other grammars can be learned via position evidence alone)? Is it some kind of general default setting for all the parameters (likely to be a “subset” grammar from which all other grammars can be learned via position evidence alone)? Is it just carrying over the parameter settings from L1? Is it just carrying over the parameter settings from L1? Some combination of these? Some combination of these?

75. L2A: Tricks In order to look properly at parameters, we need to know what they are. And what a “default” setting might be. This turns out to be hard. In order to look properly at parameters, we need to know what they are. And what a “default” setting might be. This turns out to be hard. Pro-drop parameter. Default: Drop subjects? Subset learnable? Correlated with anything else? Pro-drop parameter. Default: Drop subjects? Subset learnable? Correlated with anything else? Binding Theory Governing Category? Default? Language-wide? Strictly predictable from morphology? Binding Theory Governing Category? Default? Language-wide? Strictly predictable from morphology?

76. L2A: Interlanguage = L1+prescriptive rules? Is the IL just L1 plus some prescriptive rules (LLK)? (Fundamental Difference) Is the IL just L1 plus some prescriptive rules (LLK)? (Fundamental Difference) Or does the IL actually show resetting of parameters? Or does the IL actually show resetting of parameters? Resetting should entail: cluster of properties comes with new value (again requires that we know what the parameters, values, clusters are) Resetting should entail: cluster of properties comes with new value (again requires that we know what the parameters, values, clusters are) If we can find a non-L1, non-L2, but UG- available option in the IL, that also suggests parameter setting. If we can find a non-L1, non-L2, but UG- available option in the IL, that also suggests parameter setting.

77. Pro-UG MacLaughlin (1998) and Japanese to English via Russian anaphors. MacLaughlin (1998) and Japanese to English via Russian anaphors. Kanno (1996) and JSL learners seeming to know how to drop case markers without instruction. Kanno (1996) and JSL learners seeming to know how to drop case markers without instruction.

78. UG? White (1991), ESL kids coming from French don’t seem to learn that the verb doesn’t raise (at least over adverbs). White (1991), ESL kids coming from French don’t seem to learn that the verb doesn’t raise (at least over adverbs). Hawkins et al. (1993), FSL people seem to be “faking” French—early stage treating negation as part of the verb, start to allow SVAO in addition to SAVO (recruiting HNP shift). Hawkins et al. (1993), FSL people seem to be “faking” French—early stage treating negation as part of the verb, start to allow SVAO in addition to SAVO (recruiting HNP shift).

79. L2A: Is there a difference between kids and adults? L2A is harder as you get older. L2A is harder as you get older. L1A is quite possibility bounded in time. L1A is quite possibility bounded in time. Evidence for CPs seem to point to different CPs for different subsystems… Evidence for CPs seem to point to different CPs for different subsystems… CPs exist in vision, maybe we can find a brain correlate? CPs exist in vision, maybe we can find a brain correlate? Yet some people may manage to overcome this and become indistinguishable from a native speaker. Some plasticity remains? Yet some people may manage to overcome this and become indistinguishable from a native speaker. Some plasticity remains? What disappears/deteriorates? UG? LAD? What disappears/deteriorates? UG? LAD?

80. L2A: Negative evidence useful? L1A doesn’t use negative evidence. L1A doesn’t use negative evidence. If there is parameter transfer into IL from L1, logical subset relations might require negative evidence to reach correct parameter setting. If there is parameter transfer into IL from L1, logical subset relations might require negative evidence to reach correct parameter setting. Providing people with negative evidence seems to help—but only in the short term (without prolonged practicing), it may not yield any permanent “parameter resetting.” Providing people with negative evidence seems to help—but only in the short term (without prolonged practicing), it may not yield any permanent “parameter resetting.”

81. L2A: Markedness? Are “unmarked” things easier/quicker to learn than “marked” things? Does teaching the “marked” things give you the “unmarked” things for free? Are “unmarked” things easier/quicker to learn than “marked” things? Does teaching the “marked” things give you the “unmarked” things for free? What are the marked and unmarked things? What are the marked and unmarked things? Why do we see generalization beyond the marked (e.g., in Doughty’s NPAH experiment) Why do we see generalization beyond the marked (e.g., in Doughty’s NPAH experiment)

82. OI’s in adults? No, L2A≠L1A Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite contexts. Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite contexts. When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts (used finitely, moved).—Prévost & White Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts (used finitely, moved).—Prévost & White Oblig. Fin Oblig. Nonfin +Fin-Fin-Fin+Fin A(F)76724327817 Z(F)7552241562 A(G)38945767 Z(G)43485986

83. Bottom line: Especially with respect to L2A, there are a lot of things left to discover because careful and theoretically informed experiments still need to be done. Especially with respect to L2A, there are a lot of things left to discover because careful and theoretically informed experiments still need to be done. Many of the experiments that are in the literature rely on misleading simplistic notions (a monolithic UG subsuming the LAD, a single once-and-for-all CPH, a one-stage-at-a time view of acquisition, a subset relation for adverb placement or binding domain definitions)… Many of the experiments that are in the literature rely on misleading simplistic notions (a monolithic UG subsuming the LAD, a single once-and-for-all CPH, a one-stage-at-a time view of acquisition, a subset relation for adverb placement or binding domain definitions)…

84.                       

85.                       