Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:31:22.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic interaction in early and late bilinguals: All words are not created equally

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2010

VIRGINIA C. MUELLER GATHERCOLE  and
RUBA ABDELMATLOUB MOAWAD
VIRGINIA C. MUELLER GATHERCOLE*
Affiliation:
Bangor University
RUBA ABDELMATLOUB MOAWAD
Affiliation:
King Saud University
*
Address for correspondence: V. C. Mueller Gathercole, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2AS, Wales, UK[email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines L1–L2 interaction in semantic categorization in early and late L2 learners. Word categories that overlapped but were not identical in Arabic and English were tested. Words always showed a ‘wider’ range of application in one language, ‘narrower’ in the other. Three types of categories – ‘classical’, ‘radial’, and ‘homophones’ – were examined. Monolingual Arabic, monolingual English, early bilingual, and late bilingual speakers were tested for their understanding of the Arabic or English words. Early bilinguals’ semantic structure is affected in both directions, late bilinguals’ only in the direction of L1 to L2. Classical categories were most vulnerable to inter-language influence, whereas homophones were least vulnerable. The discussion addresses a developmental model of semantic interaction in early and late bilingual learners.

Keywords

semanticscategorizationinteractionsemantics–cognition interfaceArabic bilinguals
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 385 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

*

Many thanks to Sonica Dhillon, Dedre Gentner, Katie James, Hans Stadthagen-González, Hannah Morrish, Rocío Pérez Tattam, Enlli M. Thomas, and Hedd Tomos for endless insightful discussions on this work and assistance in research design and data collection. Thank you also to the editor and the reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this work.

References

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242–275.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.10.003Google Scholar
Ameel, E., Malt, B. C., Storms, G., & Van Assche, F. (2009). Semantic convergence in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (2), 270–290.10.1016/j.jml.2008.10.001Google Scholar
Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 60–80.10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.004Google Scholar
Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3.5- and 4.5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23, 655–664.10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.655Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Narrative structure. In Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, pp. 39–84. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children's late speech errors. In Strauss, S. & Stavy, R. (eds.), U-shaped behavioral growth, pp. 101–145. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-673020-3.50012-4Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1996a). Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and space, pp. 385–436. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1996b). The origins of children's spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In Gumperz & Levinson (eds.), pp. 27–63.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, pp. 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620669.018Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1–L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 225–251.10.1017/S0272263108080327Google Scholar
Carey, S. (2001). Bridging the gap between cognition and developmental neuroscience: The example of number representation. In Nelson, C. A. & Luciana, M. (eds.), The handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience, pp. 415–432. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (2006). Influence of language-specific input on spatial cognition: Categories of containment. First Language, 26 (2), 207–232.10.1177/0142723706060748Google Scholar
Choi, S. (2009). Typological differences in syntactic expressions of path and causation. In Gathercole (ed.), pp. 169–194.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554377Google Scholar
Costa, A., Colomé, À., & Caramazza, A. (2000). Lexical access in speech production: The bilingual case. Psicológica, 21, 403–437.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864Google Scholar
de León, L. (2009). Mayan semantics in early lexical development: The case of the Tzotzil verbs for ‘eating’ and ‘falling down’. In Gathercole (ed.), pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Hell, J. G. (2003). Testing the Language Mode Hypothesis using trilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6, 2–16.10.1080/13670050308667769Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. (eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, pp. 189–225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dong, Y., Gui, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8 (3), 221–238.10.1017/S1366728905002270Google Scholar
Döpke, S. (1998). Competing language structures: The acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German–English children. Journal of Child Language, 25, 555–584.10.1017/S0305000998003584Google Scholar
Döpke, S. (2000). The interplay between language-specific development and crosslinguistic influence. In Döpke, S. (ed.), Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism, pp. 79–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dromi, E. (1987). Early lexical development. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dromi, E. (2009). Old data – new eyes: Theories of word meaning acquisition. In Gathercole (ed.), pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
Dunn, L., Dunn, L., & Whetton, C. (1982). British Picture Vocabulary Scale. London: NFER- Nelson.Google Scholar
Dunn, L., Padilla, E., Lugo, D., & Dunn, L. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody – Adaptación Hispanoamericana [Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Latin American adaptation]. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K., & Williams, J. N. (2008). L1 polysemy affects L2 meaning interpretation: Evidence for L1 concepts active during L2 reading. Second Language Research, 24, 167–187.10.1177/0267658307086300Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2006). Introduction to Special Issue: Language-specific influences on acquisition and cognition. First Language, 26 (1), 5–17.10.1177/0142723706060738Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: Constructivist account of morpho-syntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 224–247.10.2167/beb442.0Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2009a). All categories are not created equally: Semantic interaction effects in bilinguals. Presented at Symposium on Bilingual Development: The Acquisition of Form and Meaning, XIV European Conference on Developmental Psychology, August 18–22, 2009, Vilnius, Lithuania.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2009b). “It was so much fun. It was 20 fun!” Cognitive and linguistic invitations to the development of scalar predicates. In Gathercole (ed.), pp. 319–443.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (ed.) (2009c). Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M., & Min, H. (1997). Word meaning biases or language-specific effects? Evidence from English, Spanish, and Korean. First Language, 17, 31–56.10.1177/014272379701705102Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M., Moawad, R. A., Stadthagen-González, H., Thomas, E. M., Pérez Tattam, R., Yavas, F., Campusano, G., Morrish, H., & Tomos, H. (2009). The semantics–cognition interface in bilingual systems: Not all words are created equally. Presented at Conference on Mind–Context Divide: Language Acquisition & Interfaces of Cognitive-Linguistic Modules, April 30–May 2, 2009, Iowa City, IO.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M., Thomas, E. M., & Evans, D. (2000). What's in a noun? Welsh-, English-, and Spanish-speaking children see it differently. First Language, 20, 55–90.10.1177/014272370002005803Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Choi, S. (1990). Do linguistic differences lead to cognitive differences? A cross-linguistic study of semantic and cognitive development. First Language, 10, 199–215.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 77–82.10.1017/S1366728998000133Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.10.1017/S136672899800025XGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (eds.) (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (2007). Typicality, graded membership, and vagueness. Cognitive Science, 31, 355–384.10.1080/15326900701326402Google Scholar
Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853596889Google Scholar
Hernandez, A., Li, P., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of competing modules in bilingualism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (5), 220–225.10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.003Google Scholar
Hohenstein, J., Naigles, L., & Eisenberg, A. (2004). Keeping verb acquisition in motion: A comparison of English and Spanish. In Hall, G. & Waxman, S. (eds.), Weaving a lexicon, pp. 569–602. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (3), 227–244.10.1017/S1366728900000353Google Scholar
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A crosslinguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169–200.10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203935927Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21 (1), 47–77.10.1093/applin/21.1.47Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2002). Form–meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–638.10.1017/S0272263102004047Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 88, 416–432.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (2009). Second language acquisition of the lexicon. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 181–209. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1977). More about the same: Children's understanding of post-articles. Journal of Child Language, 4, 377–394.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 15, 59–92.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and nontransfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2 (1), 37–59.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don't. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), Language transfer in language learning, pp. 112–134. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Curley, J. (1988). Lexical memory in novice bilinguals: The role of concepts in retrieving second language words. In Gruneberg, M., Morris, P. & Sykes, R. (eds.), Practical aspects of memory, vol. 2, pp. 389–395. London: John Wiley, & Sons.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1986). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, P. (2009). Meaning in acquisition: Semantic structure, lexical organization, and crosslinguistic variation. In Gathercole (ed.), pp. 257–283.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620713Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (1996). The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research. In Gumperz & Levinson (eds.), pp. 37–69.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2003). Linguistic diversity and object naming by non-native speakers of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 47–67.10.1017/S1366728903001020Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., & Gennari, S. P. (2003). Universality and language specificity in object naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 20–42.10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00021-4Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1991). The whole object, taxonomic, and mutual exclusivity assumptions as initial constraints on word meanings. In Byrnes, J. P. & Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Perspectives on language and cognition: Interrelations in development, pp. 72–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511983689.004Google Scholar
McCune, L. (2006). Dynamic event words: From common cognition to varied linguistic expression. First Language, 26 (2), 233–255.10.1177/0142723706060749Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1989). Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Hyltenstam, K. & Obler, L. (eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss, pp. 13–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611780.003Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2001). The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: Early differentiation and subsequent development of grammars. In Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.), Trends in bilingual acquisition, pp. 11–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tilar.1.03meiGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B., & Brown, P. (2009). Getting the INSIDE story: Learning to express containment in Tzeltal and Hindi. In Gathercole (ed.), pp. 97–132.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1992). Transferability and linguistic substrates. Second Language Research, 8 (3), 171–202.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–25.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1997). The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 331–354. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (3), 209–230.10.1017/S1366728999000322Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2003). Eyewitness memory in late bilinguals: Evidence for discursive relativity. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7 (3), 257–281.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches, pp. 125–160. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847691262-008Google Scholar
Prior, A., MacWhinney, B., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1029–1038.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz & Levinson (eds.), pp. 70–96.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2009). Relations between paths of motion and paths of vision: A crosslinguistic and developmental exploration. In Gathercole (ed.), pp. 197–222.Google Scholar
Smith, L. (1999). Children's noun learning: How general learning processes make specialized learning mechanisms. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), The emergence of language, pp. 277–303. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29–56.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, J., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605–632.Google Scholar
Stadthagen-González, H., Pérez Tattam, R., Yavas, F., & Campusano, G. (2009). Language dominance and interaction of LA and LB in Spanish–English adults in Miami. Presented at Colloquium on The Semantics–Cognition Interface in Bilinguals: Interaction Effects, Direction of Influence, Age of Acquisition, and Language Dominance, ISB7; July 8–11, 2009, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Kroll, J. F., De Groot, A. M. B., & van Hell, J. G. (2002). Number of translation norms for Dutch–English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 435–451.Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R., & Kosowski, T. D. (1990). Nouns mark category relations: Toddlers’ and preschoolers’ word-learning biases. Child Development, 61, 1461–1473.10.2307/1130756Google Scholar
Weist, R. M. (2008). One-to-one mapping of temporal and spatial relations. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Őzçalişkan, S. & Nakamura, K. (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, pp. 69–80. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Weist, R. M. (2009). Children think and talk about time and space. In Łobacz, P., Nowak, P. & Zabrocki, W. (eds.), Language, science, and culture. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Manzini, M. R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds.), Parameter setting, pp. 41–76. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-3727-7_3Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2001). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., & Ventura, T. (2009). When Russians learn English: How the semantics of causation may change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12 (2), 153–176.Google Scholar
Wynn, K. (1996). Infants’ individuation and enumeration of physical actions. Psychological Science, 7, 164–169.Google Scholar
Xu, F., & Carey, S. (1996). Infants’ metaphysics: The case of numerical identity. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 111–153.Google Scholar
Zhao, X., & Li, P. in press. Bilingual lexical interactions in an unsupervised neural network model. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.Google Scholar