Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T20:58:31.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bimodal bilingualism*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

KAREN EMMOREY ,
HELSA B. BORINSTEIN ,
ROBIN THOMPSON  and
TAMAR H. GOLLAN
KAREN EMMOREY*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
HELSA B. BORINSTEIN
Affiliation:
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
ROBIN THOMPSON
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
TAMAR H. GOLLAN
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Address for correspondence: Dr. Karen Emmorey, Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, San Diego State University, 6495 Alvarado Court, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92120, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Speech–sign or “bimodal” bilingualism is exceptional because distinct modalities allow for simultaneous production of two languages. We investigated the ramifications of this phenomenon for models of language production by eliciting language mixing from eleven hearing native users of American Sign Language (ASL) and English. Instead of switching between languages, bilinguals frequently produced code-blends (simultaneously produced English words and ASL signs). Code-blends resembled co-speech gesture with respect to synchronous vocal–manual timing and semantic equivalence. When ASL was the Matrix Language, no single-word code-blends were observed, suggesting stronger inhibition of English than ASL for these proficient bilinguals. We propose a model that accounts for similarities between co-speech gesture and code-blending and assumes interactions between ASL and English Formulators. The findings constrain language production models by demonstrating the possibility of simultaneously selecting two lexical representations (but not two propositions) for linguistic expression and by suggesting that lexical suppression is computationally more costly than lexical selection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 43 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Development (HD-047736) awarded to Karen Emmorey and San Diego State University. Tamar Gollan was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (K23 DC 001910). We thank Danielle Lucien, Rachel Morgan, Jamie Smith and Monica Soliongco for help with data coding and transcription. We thank David Green and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We also thank Rob Hills, Peggy Lott, and Daniel Renner for creating the ASL illustrations. We are especially grateful to all of our bilingual participants.

References

Anderson, D. E. & Reilly, J. 1998. PAH! The acquisition of adverbials in ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics, 1–2, 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A. & Van den Bogaerde, B. in press. Codemixing in signs and words in input to and output from children. In Plaza-Pust, C. & Lopéz, E. Morales (eds.), Sign bilingualism: Language development, interaction, and maintenance in sign language contact situations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, C. & Cokley, D. 1980. American Sign Language: A teacher's resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: TJ Publishers.Google Scholar
Baker, C. & Padden, C. 1978. Focusing on the nonmanual components of American Sign Language. In Siple, P. (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, pp. 27–57. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baker-Schenk, C. 1983. A micro-analysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bishop, M. & Hicks, S. 2005. Orange Eyes: Bimodal bilingualism in hearing adults from Deaf families. Sign Language Studies, 5 (2), 188–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyes-Braem, P. & Sutton-Spence, R. (eds.) 2001. The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MIT: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Casey, S. & Emmorey, K. in press. Co-speech gesture in bimodal bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes.Google Scholar
Colomé, À. 2001. Lexical activation in bilinguals' speech production: Language-specific or language-independent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corina, D. P. & Sandler, W. 1993. On the nature of phonological structure in sign language. Phonology, 10, 165–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A. & Caramazza, A. 1999. Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (3), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A. & Sebastián-Gallés, N. 2000. The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296.Google ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Santesteban, M. & Ivanova, I. 2006. How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 32 (5), 1057–1074.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. (ed.) 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. 2007. The psycholinguistics of signed and spoken languages: How biology affects processing. In Gaskell, G. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, 703–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. & Thompson, R. 2005. Bimodal bilingualism: Code-blending between spoken English and American Sign Language. In Cohen, J., McAlister, K. T., Rolstad, K. & MacSwan, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, pp. 663–673. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. & Casey, S. 2001. Gesture, thought, and spatial language. Gesture, 1 (1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Gollan, T. H. & Caramazza, A. 2006. Lexical access in bilingual speakers: What's the (hard) problem? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9 (2), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H. & Acenas, L-A. R. 2004. What is a TOT? Cognate and translation effects on tip-of-the-tongue states in Spanish–English and Tagalog–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30 (1), 246–269.Google ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W. 1986. Control, activation and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. 1998. Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. 2001. The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. (ed.), One mind, two languages, pp. 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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, 409–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., De Bot, K. & Schreuder, R. 1998. Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenberger, A., Happ, D. & Leuninger, H. 2002. Modality-dependent aspects of sign language production: Evidence from slips of the hands and their repairs in German Sign Language. In Meier, et al. (eds.), pp. 112–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. 1980. Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In Key, M. R. (ed.), The relation between verbal and nonverbal communication, pp. 207–227. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kita, S. & Özyürek, A. 2003. What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48 (1), 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C. & Wodniecka, Z. 2006. Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Heij, W. 2005. Selection processes in monolingual and bilingual lexical access. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 289–307. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, H. L. 1992. The mask of benevolence: Disabling the deaf community. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.Google Scholar
Lane, H. L., Hoffmeister, R. & Bahan, B. 1996. A journey into the Deaf world. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1980. On-line processing constraints on the properties of signed and spoken languages. In Bellugi, U. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (eds.), Signed and spoken languages: Biological constraints on linguistic form, pp. 141–160. Weinheim: Verlag Chemie.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22 (1), 1–38; discussion 38–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillo-Martin, D. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 4, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thoughts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. A. & Quinto-Pozos, D. (eds.) 2002. Modality and structure in signed and spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuter, R. F. I. & Allport, A. 1999. Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs in language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 2005. Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. 1997. Dueling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching (2nd edn.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. 2002. Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. & Jake, J. L. 1995. Matching lemmas in a bilingual competence and production model: Evidence from intrasentential code-switching. Linguistics, 33, 981–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naughton, K. 1996. Spontaneous gesture and sign: A study of ASL signs co-occurring with speech. M.A. thesis, California State University, Northridge.Google Scholar
Okrent, A. 2002. A modality-free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. gesture question in sign language linguistics (or at least give us some criteria to work with). In Meier, et al. (eds.), pp. 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, C. & Humphries, T. 2005. Inside Deaf culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. R. & Savoy, P. 1998. Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 539–557.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levy, B. G., Gauna, K., Tetreault, K. & Ferraro, V. 2001. Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth: Implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28 (2), 453–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poplack, S. 1980. Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulisse, N. & Bongaerts, T. 1994. First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, P. 1994. Mother Father Deaf: Living between sound and silence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pyers, J. E. & Emmorey, K. in press. The face of bimodal bilingualism: ASL grammatical facial expressions are produced when bilinguals speak to English monolinguals. Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. 1992. Academic acceptance of American Sign Language. Springfield, IL: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Woll, B. 2001. The sign that dares to speak its name: Echo phonology in British Sign Language (BSL). In Boyes-Braem, & Sutton-Spence, (eds.), pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
Zentella, A. C. 1997. Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2004. Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Language, 80 (1), 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar