interference & codes-switching

• Interference

  • can be at multiple levels
  • Phonological = least
  • Lexical = Mixing words form different languages
  • = initially use 1 word per concept - then realise speaking 2 languages = use words form both simultaneously
• Inference - syntactic

  • Initially use 1 syntactic structure common to both languages
  • Later use 2 sets of lexical items - still maintain common syntax
  • Eventually develop separate lexicons & syntactic structures for each language
• Code switching

  • substitute word or phrase from 1 language with word/phrase from another
  • switching = systematic not random - follow grammatical rules
  • communicative device to convey linguistic & social information
• Code switching - processing cost & advantages

  • bilingual typically take longer to read & comprehend code-switched sentences
  • mental switching mechanism? - determines which 'mental dictionary' to use in comprehension
  • asymmetric switch = may suggest more inhibition requires to suppress dominant language
• Code switching - processing cost & advantages - 2

  • evidence = bilingual can impact cognition outside of language
  • Bilinguals = proficient at language switching
  • Must be adept at suppressing contextually inappropriate language
  • Bilingual advantage = found in several non-linguistic tasks that may involve task switching & inhibition processes
• Inference or crystallisation

  • Listening to Korean sentences doesn't yield any specific activation in adoptees
  • activation patterns similar in Korean adoptees & French native speakers
  • no traces of early exposure to Korean - contradict hypothesis - circuits started to crystalise
  • methods = may lack sensitivity
• Losing access to L1 while studying L2 - Linck, Kroll, Sunderman 2009

  • examined performance of native English speaking L2 learners studying Spanish
  • 1 group studying abroad in Spain - immersed in L2 environment, 1 studying in classroom - monologing environment
• Losing access to L1 while studying L2 - Linck, Kroll, Sunderman 2009 - findings

  • ps required to only use L2 during immersion = showed reduced access to L1 vocabulary compared to those use L1 regularly
  • returning to regular use of L1 = regained access to vocabulary
  • = suggests temporary loss of access during L2 immersion doesn't result in permanent loss = can recover
  • = Continued debate between crystallisation & interference hypotheses