Open Noriko Dissertation.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC STUDY OF NATIVE LANGUAGE CONSTRAINTS ON SPEAKING WORDS IN A SECOND LANGUAGE A Thesis in Psychology by Noriko Hoshino © 2006 Noriko Hoshino Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2006 The thesis of Noriko Hoshino was reviewed and approved* by the following: Judith F. Kroll Liberal Arts Research Professor of Psychology and Linguistics Thesis Advisor Chair of Committee Paola E. Dussias Assistant Professor of Spanish, Linguistics and Psychology Richard A. Carlson Professor of Psychology Daniel J. Weiss Assistant Professor of Psychology and Linguistics Henry J. Gerfen Jr. Associate Professor of Linguistics and Spanish Linguistics Melvin M. Mark Professor of Psychology Interim Head of the Department of Psychology *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Past research on bilingual production has been performed almost exclusively with bilinguals whose two languages share the same Roman alphabets. However, little research has examined the consequences of different script bilingualism on production. The primary goal of the present research was to determine whether language-specific differences, such as script, can modulate cross-language activation and the locus and manner of language selection in planning spoken words. To address this question, three experiments (simple picture naming, picture-word interference, and language switching) compared the performance of Japanese-English and Spanish-English bilinguals. In Experiment 1, bilinguals named cognate and noncognate pictures in each language. The results showed that both groups produced significant cognate facilitation in each language. The findings suggest that in the absence of the written lexical form, script differences do not function as a language cue to reduce cross-language activation. Furthermore, both languages appear to be activated to the level of the phonology. In Experiment 2, bilinguals named pictures in their L2 while ignoring visually presented distractor words in the L1. A critical finding in Experiment 2 was that both types of bilinguals showed phonological and translation facilitation, whereas only Spanish- English bilinguals demonstrated semantic interference and phono-translation facilitation. These results suggest that when the script is present in the task, different-script bilinguals are able to exploit perceptual information as a language cue to lexical access earlier than same script bilinguals. In Experiment 3, the bilinguals performed two language switching tasks, one with pictures and another with words. In each experiment they produced two iv names in L1 and two names in L2 in strict alternation. Although the two bilingual groups were similar in picture naming, Japanese-English bilinguals were slower in L2 than Spanish-English bilinguals in word naming, suggesting again that script differences create costs in mapping of orthography to phonology in L2. Taken together, the results of the three experiments suggest that although script differences cannot direct lexical access selectively, they allow the bilingual to select the language of production at an earlier point in speech planning when they are perceptually available. Implications for models of lexical access in bilingual production are discussed. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xvi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... xx CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION........................................... 1 SPEECH PRODUCTION IN MONOLINGUALS ....................................................................... 2 Models of Lexical Access in Monolingual Production ............................................... 4 Discrete Two-Stage Models.................................................................................... 4 Interactive Models .................................................................................................. 7 Cascade Models ...................................................................................................... 9 SPEECH PRODUCTION IN BILINGUALS ............................................................................ 12 Models of Lexical Access in Bilingual Production................................................... 12 Simple Picture Naming ............................................................................................. 17 Picture-Word Interference........................................................................................ 19 Language Mixing/Switching ..................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE EXPERIMENTS AND GENERAL METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 28 IS SELECTIVE LEXICAL ACCESS POSSIBLE? ................................................................... 28 Cross-Linguistic Differences between English and Japanese .................................. 28 The Role of Orthography in Production ................................................................... 30 Language Cue Hypothesis ........................................................................................ 31 GOALS AND HYPOTHESES OF PRESENT RESEARCH ........................................................ 32 GENERAL METHOD ........................................................................................................ 36 Participants............................................................................................................... 36 Experiment 1: Simple Picture Naming ..................................................................... 37 Experiment 2: Picture-Word Interference ................................................................ 40 Experiment 3: Language Switching in Picture and Word Naming........................... 41 PROFICIENCY MEASURES............................................................................................... 43 Language History Questionnaire.............................................................................. 44 Lexical Decision Task............................................................................................... 44 Materials ............................................................................................................... 45 Procedure .............................................................................................................. 45 Data Analyses ....................................................................................................... 46 Verbal Fluency Task ................................................................................................. 46 Materials ............................................................................................................... 46 vi Procedure .............................................................................................................. 47 Data Analyses ....................................................................................................... 47 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE MEASURES ............................................................................ 48 Simon Task................................................................................................................ 48 Materials ............................................................................................................... 49 Procedure .............................................................................................................. 49 Data Analyses ....................................................................................................... 50 Operation Span Task................................................................................................. 50 Materials ............................................................................................................... 51 Procedure .............................................................................................................. 51 Data Analyses ....................................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 1: SIMPLE PICTURE NAMING ............................ 53 METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 56 Participants............................................................................................................... 56 Materials................................................................................................................... 57 Procedure.................................................................................................................. 61 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................. 63 Proficiency Measures................................................................................................ 64 Language History Questionnaire .......................................................................... 64 Cross-Language Group Comparisons..............................................................