This Master thesis would not have its current shape without the help of several people. I

Transcription

1 Acknowledgements This Master thesis would not have its current shape without the help of several people. I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Marjolijn Verspoor, who guided me through the process of writing this thesis and who helped me get over obstacles and through difficult moments. I would also like to thank Dr Wander Lowie, the second reader of my thesis, who helped me with the statistical analysis of this study. Several people have helped me with the experiments this thesis contains: Dr L.A. Stowe, Bregtje Seton, Vanessa Pietersz, and all the numerous anonymous respondents of the word association tasks and reaction time experiments; I would like to thank them as well. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends who have supported and stimulated me throughout my years at the University of Groningen and who have believed in me. 1

2 List of abbreviations L1 L2 BIA WA task RT experiment NSD NSE NNSD SD Ms First Language or mother tongue Second Language Bilingual Interactive Activation model Word Association task Reaction Time experiment Native Speakers of Dutch Native Speakers of English Non-Native Speakers of Dutch (with L1 English) Standard Deviation Milliseconds 2

3 Summary Words are labels for concepts. Many different words could refer to a similar concept. Not every concept is represented by a word, because sometimes a particular feeling cannot always be referred to with a word. Therefore, a concept is seen as a dynamic, mental representation that exists separately from words. It displays our experience and knowledge gained through the outside world. When learning another language, L2 learners with a different language and cultural background are likely to have different concepts than native speakers of a language. When L2 learners transfer conceptual knowledge of their L1 onto their L2 by means of specific L1 elements, they influence their L2. This study questions to what extent the L1 conceptual knowledge of native speakers of English influences their L2 Dutch. To answer this question, two experiments are conducted. First, a word association task with 75 target words is carried out. The responses are compared to responses by native speakers of Dutch and native speakers of English. Out of the responses, one association is selected for each target word to represent the non-native speakers of Dutch and one to represent the native speakers of Dutch. These associations show that the L2 learners are still influenced by the conceptual representations of their L1. In order to prove that these results are meaningful, a reaction time experiment is conducted. Different native Dutch and non-native Dutch subjects respond to the 75 target words and their associations acquired from the word association tasks. Unfortunately, the results of the reaction time experiment did not have a significant result. A future study with subjects of a more similar background and proficiency in Dutch could prove the conceptual transfer from L1 to L2. 3

4

5 Table of contents 1 Acknowledgements 2 List of abbreviations 3 Summary 5 Table of contents 7 Introduction 10 Chapter 1: Theoretical Background Approaches towards the process of learning a second language The relationship between words and conceptual knowledge The bilingual mind The elicitation of parts of the conceptual knowledge Empirical evidence Conclusion Statement of purpose and hypothesis 34 Chapter 2: Methodology Word Association Tasks Introduction Word Association Subjects WA Materials WA Procedures WA Analysis 46 Reaction Time experiment methodology 2.5 RT Subjects RT Materials RT Procedures RT Analysis 55 Chapter 3: Results 3.1 Results WA tasks Results RT experiments Classification Prime nouns and prime verbs compared Syllables 64 Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion 4.1 Discussion and Analysis WA tasks Discussion and Analysis RT experiments Shortcomings of this study Shortcomings of WA tasks Shortcomings RT experiments 5

6 78 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Suggestions 5.1 Conclusion Shortcomings of this study Relevance of this study for language teaching Suggestions for future research 84 References 89 Appendices I Word Associations questionnaires for NSD and NNSD 91 II Primes and Classification EN primes 96 III Motivation for the EN primes 107 IV Motivation for the NL primes 109 V Associations given to all word association tasks 6

7 Introduction Learning to speak a foreign language usually takes a lot of time and effort. In order to speak a foreign language the first step is forming a basic vocabulary. The easiest and most frequent way of learning new words is by learning L2 translations of L1 words. However, when you simply study translation equivalents, you may not always get the complete meaning of a word, because a translation equivalent may not cover all specific L1 elements. Dutch learners of English, for example, might not learn that the English word career covers a different meaning than the Dutch word carrière. In English career refers more to a general course of ones working life than the Dutch word carrière, which stands mainly for the particular profession for which one has trained and has worked hard for in order to get that position. These subtle differences may cause one not to achieve mastery of all the conceptual elements of the L2 concepts, even when the level of overall fluency could be at the level of a native speaker. This study researches these subtle differences between concepts in Dutch and English. A word association task is used in order to determine to what extent L1 English influences the conceptual knowledge of advanced learners of Dutch. The results of these word association tasks are analysed on conceptual transfer : whether L2 learners transfer conceptual elements of their L1 onto their L2. The responses are compared to associations by native speakers of Dutch and English to discover L1 transferred associations. Subsequently, a reaction time experiment is conducted to see whether the advanced L2 speakers react differently to transferred associations than the native speakers Previous studies have researched the bilingual mind and conceptual differences between languages (cf. De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2005), but not many studies have focused on the extent to which conceptual transfer influences the conceptual knowledge of L2. Sharifian did a similar study (2005), but the focus in that study was on conceptual differences 7

8 between groups with a different cultural tradition. Verspoor did a similar word association study with advanced L2 learners, but they had different L1 s. Dong et al. (2005) did a study that was similar to this study because it consisted of word association tasks and reaction time experiments, but they tested Chinese learners of English at different levels of proficiency. This study researches the influence of conceptual differences on the conceptual representations of L2 learners of Dutch with L1 English of the same cultural background. The purpose of this study is to gain insight into the conceptual representation of learners of L2 Dutch. L2 learners may appear to have fully mastered the language, but when it turns out that they have not yet acquired the conceptual differences between the L2 and their L1, it could be useful for language teachers to pay more attention to conceptual differences while teaching foreign languages, in this case, Dutch. Conceptual differences between languages are an important aspect to acquire in order to obtain a native-like proficiency. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine whether very advanced learners of Dutch are still influenced by their L1 after having lived in the Netherlands for many years. The word association tasks will explore whether conceptual transfer takes place in advanced L2 learners. Similar association tasks have led to good results in previous studies (Verspoor, 2005). If the results give proof of conceptual transfer in learners of Dutch, a further reaction time experiment is conducted to determine whether the results of the word association tasks were significant. This study could then lead to more extensive studies in order to improve the quality of these experiments or to gain more knowledge about the conceptual transfer and conceptual knowledge of learners of L2. This study starts with a theoretical background in Chapter one that builds up to the presentation of these experiments. The theory also deals with the above mentioned studies by Dong et al., Sharifian, Verspoor and others. Chapter 2 explains the methodology of the study and Chapter 3 continues with the analysis. In Chapter 4, the experiment is analysed and 8

9 discussed in order to get to the conclusion that L2 learners are influenced by their L1 and transfer elements of their L1 onto their L2 concept. The conclusion ends with suggestions for future research. 9

10 1. Theoretical background This study deals with the difference of conceptual knowledge in Dutch between native speakers of Dutch and native speakers of English who acquired Dutch as a second language. The main purpose of this study is to find out to what extent L1 conceptual knowledge influences L2 conceptual knowledge. A successful way to expose parts of the conceptual knowledge is by conducting word association tasks. In this way, parts of the bilingual network consisting of interconnected words and concepts are researched. This study consists of a word association task performed by native speakers of Dutch, native speakers of English and English near-native speakers of Dutch, their L2. Subsequently, a selection of these words with their typical word association for both L1 and L2 will be displayed in a reaction time experiment to prove that the connection between a certain word and its association is invoked more quickly than to any other word. Native speakers of Dutch and English near-native speakers of Dutch will perform the reaction time experiment. In this paper, I strive to find out how L1 conceptual knowledge may influence the L2 conceptual knowledge, based on the connectionist Bilingual Interactive Activation Model. The first chapter of this study deals with the theoretical background, which starts with the aims of this study and then processes the following aspects of second language acquisition: 1) Approaches towards the process of learning a second language. 2) The relation between a word and conceptual knowledge. 3) The organisation of the bilingual lexicon. 4) The elicitation of parts of the conceptual knowledge through word association tasks. 5) Empirical evidence. 6) Conclusion 7) Statement of purpose and hypothesis. 10

11 1.1 Approaches towards the process of learning a second language Supposedly, the acquisition of a second language is very different from acquiring the mother tongue. It requires interaction in the second language, not so much with speakers being concerned with the form of their speech, but with trying to understand the speech and to form understandable utterances. Mitchell and Myles describe the difference in learning an L2 instead of an L1, as follows The needs of second language learners are very different, if only because they are already successful communicators in one language and because they already have a mental representation of language, with the parameters set to the values of their native language (55). This determines the difficulty in learning a second language, because the second language learner will approach the L2 with the foreknowledge of their L1, which will often be different. In order to understand all the developments on the relation between concepts and words, a brief look on some past research and theories is necessary. Theories about the bilingual lexicon are widespread and still broadly researched nowadays. Krashen s monitor Model Krashen hypothesizes in the late ninety-eighties that language acquisition and language learning are two separate processes. Krashen used five basic hypotheses, one of them was the Monitor hypothesis which claims that an innate monitor changes our utterances that have been acquired by our system; only here learning has a function (Krashen 1982, p. 15 ). The Natural Order hypothesis assumes that people acquire the rules of language in a predictable order, independent of the order in which rules are taught in language classes (Krashen 1985, p. 1). By means of the Input hypothesis, Krashen also claims that a learner s language competence grows through acquisition. Acquisition results into speaking competence according to 11

12 Krashen (1985, 2). Learners are also believed to have affective variables that decide how receptive a learner is to comprehensible input. The Universal Grammar paradigm and Krashen s hypotheses led to one general research question: how similar are the first and second language acquisition processes? Cognitive approaches to second language learning In the ninety-eighties, cognitive ideas about second language learning emerged. These cognitive ideas about language learning are based on what is known about the acquisition of complex procedural skills in general. Cognitive approaches align language learning with any learning process in general. These views are opposed to ideas about a Universal Grammar, which considers language learning as different from other kinds of learning. Cognitive approaches can be divided into two different strands. Theorists such as Pienemann, Towell and Hawkins (1994) support the innate language device, but they are concerned with the development of processing theories that would complement generative theories like the Universal Grammar theory. Others like N.C. Ellis (2003), MacWhinney (1999) and Tomasello (1992) deny the existence of an innate device and aim for a constructionist theory that has a usage-based view of language development, which is driven by communicative needs. The constructionists raise different ideas about second language acquisition, concerning many processing models that all focus on the way in which language processing works in the brain (Mitchell and Myles, 99). Connectionism The constructionist view, also called emergentist, has a usage-based view of language learning. There are many approaches in the constructionist view, such as emergentism, connectionism, associationism, constructivism, functionalism, cognitivism, etc. As this study 12

13 is based on a connectionist model, the following theories will be restricted to the connectionist approach. Connectionists claim that language learning is a process that can be learned in the same way as learning in general. De Bot et al. (2006) describe connectionism as a movement in cognitive science that seeks to explain human intellectual abilities by using computer simulations of neural networks (31). Language learning is a learning process that can be influenced because of interaction between its components and because of interaction with the environment. According to Ellis and Schmidt, connectionist models have strength of association between separate nodes. Therefore, they are suitable to investigate word association because of exposure to language. They believe that the learning of rules happens through the associative processes; associations between elements are sought after and the connections between elements become stronger when elements keep recurring (Elis, N. and Schmidt, R., 1997, 145). Connectionists are less interested in the development of language because they believe it to be a general learning process. Instead, they focus on the manner of acquisition and its working elements. The models and theories above mentioned have tried to capture the process of learning and acquiring a second language. It seems that unraveling the process of how people learn and acquire a language does not address the workings of the bilingual mind. The bilingual mind has two lexicons. Current research still focuses on the question whether the bilingual mind has separate or intermingled lexicons. Another important topic of interest is whether the bilingual mind has a separate conceptual knowledge system for each language or whether the languages in the bilingual mind are possibly interconnected by means of one conceptual knowledge system. The workings of a bilingual mind may possibly tell us more about the way the second language is learned. However, before the bilingual mind is discussed it is first necessary to 13

14 look at the workings of a monolingual mind and the relationship between words and concepts. The following part will discuss this relationship between words and concepts and includes theories on this topic. 1.2 The relationship between words and the conceptual knowledge Our word choice determines how we express ourselves in our daily lives. All words have many separate, specific senses that make it easier for people to say precisely what they think. Within Cognitive Linguistic theory, each word in our mental lexicon is a label for a certain concept we have in mind. For example, the word pet is a label for the concept we have in mind of a pet. The difference in the kind, size and shape of the pet differs for almost everybody since hardly anybody has an identical pet. In general, people have a different image in mind when they think of the word pet. It is far from easy to define what a concept is exactly. Within a CL view, a word s meaning emerges out of language contexts and it does not emerge until it is used in a language context. The word triggers a conceptual representation, which is usually referred to as a concept. This means that words refer to concepts, but not every concept is designated by a word. Words are labels for concepts and many words that could refer to a similar concept, for example, advantage and benefit. However, there are also concepts that cannot be referred to with a word. A certain feeling or a specific moment can be conceptually represented, though one cannot designate it by means of just one word. A concept is seen as a dynamic, mental representation that exists separately from words. A concept displays our experience and knowledge gained through the outside world. This clarifies why a second language learner not only has to learn a different language but also different conceptual knowledge that is partially dependent on the culture of the L2. Lakoff defines a concept as conceptual, dynamic representations in people s minds that are related to our experience and knowledge (Lakoff, 1987). Lakoff presented a dynamic model 14

15 of concepts, which he named an Idealised Cognitive model (1987). According to Lakoff, we create conceptual representation through experience with the world and culture around us (1987). This seems to be a reasonable explanation for the fact that speakers of different languages have a different conceptual knowledge, because generally speaking, speakers of different languages belong to different cultures. Different cultures lead to difference in experience, which will consecutively lead to difference in conceptual knowledge. This approach is similar to what De Groot says about concepts being dynamic and changing under the influence of experience (2000) and similar to Sharifian s theory of cultural cognition that will be discussed below. Dynamic usage-based model A linguist, who agrees with the cognitive linguistic view that a linguistic theory has to combine all aspects of language, is Langacker. Langacker developed a linguistic model of the language mind in order to understand the workings of the monolingual mind. In his Dynamic usage-based model (2000) he defines language structure as massive networks in which structures with varying degrees of entrenchment, and representing different levels of abstraction are linked together in relationships of categorization, composition and symbolization. In this way, Langacker opts for an integrated approach of all aspects of language. Within the usage-based model, regular behaviour of linguistic items is captured by schematic constructions and their instances. This knowledge is stored in the minds of speakers. Some constructions are more entrenched in speakers' minds than others, depending on the frequency of the expressions and utterances. Langacker describes Cognitive Grammar as a structured organisation of conventional linguistic units. These linguistic units are semantic, phonological, and symbolic resources form the linguistic system, which need the help of the language user to perform the following 15

16 abilities: planning, problem-solving ability, memory, general knowledge, short- and longerterm goals, and full apprehension to create language. A combination of all these abilities is what Langacker describes as a usage event, the pairing of vocalization and conceptualization representing its full contextual understanding. Therefore, in using an utterance the speaker or addressee is not only aware of the words, but also of the characteristics of it. This awareness is caused by the abilities of the language user mentioned above. These linguistic units compete to determine which unit will emerge as the active structure that is put forward to categorize the target. The factors that determine which unit will become the active structure are the level of entrenchment, the level of abstraction and the amount of overlap. Such a competition of these linguistic units is what Langacker calls an activation set. Before an expression is uttered, it will first be judged by the pairing of a language user and the linguistic system in a usage event. These usage events have in turn many features that are susceptible to categorization by well-formed linguistic units. Several structures together form Langacker s Dynamic usage-based model, among them the structure of metaphors. According to Langacker, the scheme of metaphors in the language user s mind is based on a general idea of comparison and categorization. Their established structures are used to measure novel structures. Metaphors have three structures that represent different domains of experience, a target domain, and a source domain and a schema. The Source domain is already established. The Target source and schema are diverse in nature and status and contribute to the impressive qualitative diversity of the metaphors. However, these three structures need a Hybrid domain that blends the features of the Target and Source domain to produce a different structure. This could be exemplified by a person that resembles a pig because of its behaviour. The Source is here the pig, the Target is the person, and the Hybrid is the pigperson, the result of a blended Source and Target. Langacker 16

17 defines metaphors as conceptual phenomena that are not necessarily tied to a particular linguistic expression. Phonology is another structure of Langacker s model. These structures, such as intonation, feet, words, and syllables are omnipresent. The phonological level consists of sound segments abstracted from syllables. If several phonological segments have enough in common and occur in enough recognizable situations, a schematized segment arises which personifies the commonalities of the segments. The phonological rules are schemas judged from actual and conventional expressions. In these schemas, certain sound combinations will be assessed as non-conventional. In the same manner as these segments are deduced from syllables, the model considers morphemes that are deduced from words. Morphology is the third structure allowed by content requirement. The other structures are semantic and symbolic structures. Morphemes are seen to arise by the process of abstraction. This process can be described as the identification of repeated pairings between conceptual and phonological structures. Not all morphemes have a perceptible conventional meaning, but the meaning can often be derived from its meaning in other words. For example, printer consists of print and er. Er does not have a conventional meaning of its own, but can be recognized from words as freezer, eraser, and ruler. A recurring sound/meaning association enables a schema to analyse other expressions. The morphemic components become prominent in this way and show the content of the words from which they are extracted. In this way, a system of sound symbolism might evolve when a morpheme is increasingly linked to a certain meaning. What Langacker indicates with this model is that the immense activities that represent a speaker s conventional linguistic knowledge can usually be assigned to a few basic psychological phenomena. These apply repeatedly in many domains and at many levels of organisation of our linguistic structures. 17

18 According to Langacker (1994, in Sharifian, 1997), dynamic concepts are primarily cognitive phenomena in individual s minds. Sharifian, however, says dynamic concepts are also reflected in the culture of a certain group of human beings. Culture is relevant to cognitive sciences because its existence manifests human cognitive abilities and because societies depict aspects of human life, in particular cognitive activity. Cognition emerges because of communication between members of a cultural group. Language is an important aspect of cultural cognition, because languages express the cultural conceptualisations of their speakers according to Sharifian. Every speaker of a cultural group has differences in representations, cultural cognition, cultural conceptualisation, and language. Nevertheless, every member of a cultural group has some of the aspects that form a culture. Not every member shares the same aspects, but they are heterogeneously distributed among the members of a cultural group. Each member contributes properties to a culture. This knowledge is randomly distributed over the members of a cultural group. According to Sharifian, cognition is an emergent system, resulting from the interaction between members of a cultural group across time and space. Cognition is dynamic, because members of a cultural group pass it on to other generations that renegotiate it. Cognition forms, together with art, rituals, dance etc., a part of a culture. The ultimate level of cultural cognition consists of properties that emerge from the interactions between members of a cultural group. In this way, conceptualisations emerge at the cultural level of cognition. Individuals probably do not conceptualise in exactly the same way, but often a collective cognition is created between members of a cultural group, which are called cultural conceptualisations (12). Our cultural cognition determines our behaviour and our language. Further, we assume that the behaviour of others is based on the same cultural cognition. Our cultural cognition also serves as the basis for the assumptions that people make from what they experience in 18

19 their culture. Cultural cognition is largely transmitted through language. Language is also emergent, because it results from the speech of individual members of a speech community across time and space (Sharifian, 25). According to Tomasello (in: Sharifian, 1997) human beings have constructed an array of categorical perspectives, construals of all kinds of objects, events, and relations, and they have embodied them in their systems of symbolic communication called natural languages. Tomasello means that all of the cultural conceptualisations and ideas people in a cultural group have are mainly expressed by their language. The cultural level of cognition is where language and conceptualisation appear. Various sources of experience make it possible for new experiences to be made sense of and organised. These experiences lead to the development of our conceptual knowledge. Our conceptual knowledge consists of categories and schemas that are kept apart by means of certain associations. These word associations, according to Robinson (1997, in: Sharifian) reflect regularities in an organism s perception of and interaction with its environment. Schemas and categories store conceptual relationships and they are used to create mental models, mapping across conceptualisations. To summarise, words are labels for concepts. Many words could refer to a similar concept. However, not every concept is represented by a word. For example, a particular feeling cannot always be named by a word. A concept is seen as a dynamic, mental representation that exists separately from words. It displays our experience and knowledge gained through the outside world. Lakoff sees a concept as a conceptual, dynamic representation in people s minds that is related to our experience and knowledge. Langacker sees it only as a dynamic representation in people s minds. Langacker claims with the Usagebased model that the behaviour of linguistic items is captured in the language mind, 19

20 depending on the frequency of the expressions and utterances. A pairing of the semantical, phonological and symbolic resources from the linguistic unit is what Langacker calls a usage event, the pairing of vocalization and conceptualization representing its full contextual. It is a combination of words and their concepts in one utterance. The structures of metaphors, morphemes and phonemes help the selection of the right words for the right concept in an utterance. According to Sharifian, dynamic concepts are reflected in the culture of a certain group of human beings. Cognition emerges because of communication between members of a cultural group. An important aspect of cultural cognition is language, because languages express the cultural conceptualisations of their speakers. Since every speaker has different conceptual representations, every speaker forms a part of the cultural cognition. Sharifian s view of cultural cognition and language fits with the Cognitive Linguistics theory. Cognitive linguistics mainly focuses on aspects of language, which are the embodiment of the conceptualisation of experience. Parts of the concepts in peoples minds can be exposed by means of word association tasks. Before I will continue discussing word association tasks, I will first discuss theories on the workings of the bilingual mind in order to get a better idea of the theory used for this study and of the workings of the bilingual mind. Afterwards, the conceptual knowledge of bilinguals will be reviewed. 1.3 The bilingual mind This section will present an overview of models on the bilingual lexicon in the past and will end with a discussion on the Bilingual Interactive Activation model, the model on which this study is based. The first, earliest models created about the bilingual mind were spatial models. Most of these models apply existing processing models to the second language-learning context. 20

21 Primary interest is in the manner of input processing. One of the first spatial models was Weinreich s theory concerning the relations between words and concepts in L1 and L2 (1953). According to Weinreich, the bilingual mental lexicon could be organised as a compound, a coordinate or as a subordinate lexicon. Figures 1.1a, b, c show what the representation of each lexicon would look like. Conceptual Storage 1 Conceptual Storage 2 Lexicon 1 Lexicon 2 Figure 1.1a Weinreich s compound model of representation Conceptual Storage 1 Conceptual Storage 2 Lexicon Figure 1.1b Weinreich s coordinate model of representation Conceptual Storage 1 Conceptual Storage 2 Lexicon Figure 1.1c Weinreich s subordinate model of representation 21

22 In a compound organised lexicon, there is one common concept with a different word in each language. In a coordinate organised lexicon, different languages are separated, meaning that each word in each language has its own concept. In a subordinate organised lexicon, there is one set of concepts; the lexical items in the second language can only be activated via the lexical items in the first language. Weinreich s separated lexicons seem rather self-contained and they do not consider any overlapping stages in the development of the second language learner. Reactions to Weinreich s model by others showed that Weinreich s model needed elaboration on this aspect. Beauvillain and Grainger (1987) did a reaction-time experiment that shows that lexicons do interact between languages. It has also been proven that cognates, words that are similar between languages, may have stronger relations. This will be discussed in the discussion of this study as well. Kroll and Stewart introduced the Revised Hierarchical Model (1994), which was produced to get insights into the developmental results after a move from lexical to conceptual processing. This model, which assumed that the lexical level is independent, was criticised by many subsequent models. Dijkstra et al. (1999) show in their study that form and meaning representations of lexical candidates from different languages become activated during language experiments under particular circumstances. This shows that it is likely that the lexical level is not independent, but that it is connected to the semantic and syntactical levels of language. Figure 2 shows Kroll and Stewart s model that assumes that the L1 lexicon is larger than the L2 lexicon. Further, the lines indicate that the links between words and concepts in the L1 are stronger and the links from L2 words to L1 words as well. The dotted lines indicate the relation between words and concepts in L2 and the relation of word and concepts from L1 to L2 words. 22

23 Figure 2 The Revised hierarchical model of lexical and conceptual representation in bilinguals (Kroll and Stewart, 1994). Subsequent models changed this separated lexical storage view and claimed that a bilingual mind was not likely to have separate storage spaces but interacting spaces (De Groot 1992, Kroll and Dijkstra 2002). These models did not propose independent lexical representations for each language, but one interactive system at the level of meaning. The general interest changed to whether words in the bilingual mind are connected via the lexical representations or via access to the conceptual representations (de Bot et al., 2004). In the following part, I will discuss one of the most accepted theoretical models on the bilingual mind in psycholinguistic research. This model, the Bilingual Interactive Activation model, gives many important assumptions on the set up of the bilingual mind in order to find out how the L1 lexicon could influence the L2 lexicon. However, I will first mention the process of other studies leading up to the development of this model, before I discuss the model itself. Many second language researchers have tried to understand the functioning of the bilingual mind. Several studies on bilingual research have recently argued that bilingual speakers probably have separate lexical representations of languages, but one single 23

24 conceptual system is assumed by de Groot (1992), and Kroll and Dijkstra (2002). After these assumptions, subsequent studies asked whether words in the mental lexicon of bilinguals are connected via the lexical representations or by direct access to the conceptual representations (de Bot et al., 2005, 156). As assumed, L2 speakers could possibly have one big conceptual storage space for all their languages or separate storage spaces for each language. In case of one big conceptual storage space, L2 concepts are influenced by differing L1 concepts. According to Kroll and Stewart (1994), L2 learners create a direct association to their L1 when they learn a new lexical item. In this way, the meaning of the word in the L2 will be learned under the influence of the L1 concept. This could explain why bilingual speakers often use words in their L2 in the same manner as in their L1, because they erroneously think the concept is identical. They tend to put links between their L1 knowledge and their L2 knowledge when they form a concept in their L2. In this way, L2 concepts are created by L1 associations. A study on the retrieval of word meaning by Kroll and de Groot (1997) shows conceptual representations are shared in the bilingual memory. Dijkstra and Van Heuven (1998) introduced a model that processes the bilingual mind and argues that the conceptual knowledge of a bilingual mind is the link between the two lexicons. This model is the Bilingual Interactive Activation model (1998), which will be discussed below. Bilingual Interactive Activation model Nowadays, more and more people are involved with different cultures and different languages. People are able to learn several languages and to gain a separate level of proficiency for each language. The level of proficiency depends on the frequency of exposure to a language, the use of the language, and the attention that has been paid to the learning process. This point of view was already discussed by De Bot et al. in A Dynamic systems approach to second language acquisition (2006). 24

25 The knowledge one individual has of different languages and varieties can be considered as a dynamic system in its own right, and it will change over time due to a complex interaction of a wide range of factors, such as internal forces, the amount of exposure to the forms of the language and the attention given to them (2). DST presents a framework that offers a view on language as a dynamic system on its own. As the process of learning more than one language is analysed, consequently many theories have been developed that opt to explain the workings of the bilingual mind. The question arises in what ways bilinguals are able to separate these languages from each other. A recent model that tries to explain the workings of a bilingual mind is the Bilingual Interaction Activation Model by Van Heuven and Dijkstra (1998). The Bilingual Interactive Activation model is a bilingual computer access model for bilingual word recognition. The model consists of one combined lexicon for all known words in Dutch and English. The model appears to generate data that closely resembles the data generated by a bilingual mind. The activation of all lexical representation takes place independently of the language. However, it is based on a similarity between the offered stimuli and the known lexical representations. This means that the word MUST will not only activate the word must, but also words with the same onset and the same suffix in both Dutch and in English such as munt (Dutch for coin) and most. All these words will compete with one another until only the right word remains. English words also activate similar Dutch words and these Dutch words activate in their turn the complete Dutch entity in the language mind. This entity consequently inhibits the English words from being activated. Additionally, due to the restrained English entity, the Dutch words will be activated earlier in the recognition process. 25

26 According to the BIA, the relative number of similarly spelled words in the two languages determines the activation speed of the activation in the target language above the non-target language entity activation. This was proved by experiments of Bijeljac-Babic et al.(1997) and Segui and Grainger (1990) and Van Heuven, Dijkstra and Grainger (1998). The latter did a series of progressive demasking experiments in which subjects had to identify words that are covered with a slowly disappearing mask. Further, they conducted lexical decision experiments in which the participants had to indicate whether the appearing words are existing or non-existing words in either Dutch or English. These lexical decision experiments tested how the recognition of target words exclusively belonging to one language is influenced by orthographically similar words in either the same or the other language of a bilingual participant. When the orthographic words in Dutch increased, the response times to English target words decreased in Dutch/English bilinguals. An increase of target language similar words produced suppressed effects for Dutch target words and supported effects for English target words. This experiment performed by only monolingual English speakers, showed supportive effects due to similar English words. However, no effects appeared for similar Dutch words. These experiments all provided evidence for analogue activation of words in a Dutch/English bilingual lexicon, hypothesized by the BIA model. The BIA itself is an adaptation of the monolingual memory model of McClelland & Rumelhart (1981). Van Heuven and Dijkstra have extended the Bilingual Interactive Activation model to the BIA+. Van Heuven and Dijkstra added a semantics module and a task module in the BIA+ model that were not present in the BIA. They gave rise to the word level in the BIA+ and at the word level, the lexical items are separated into their respective languages. As mentioned above, the BIA model claims that mental lexicons of different languages are likely to have separate lexicons, however they are interconnected by means of 26

27 an interactive conceptual knowledge. The interconnection of the conceptual knowledge of L1 and L2 shows that the lexicon of a bilingual speaker is in fact one system. Even though it is known that the conceptual knowledge of L1 influences the conceptual knowledge of L2, the amount of influence of the conceptual knowledge of the L1 on the L2 conceptual knowledge is not visible. In order to get some more insights on this part of the bilingual mind, the relationship between words and concepts needs elaboration. Once it becomes evident how a word represents a concept, a better idea will be obtained about the way our conceptual knowledge works and how the conceptual knowledge may interact between two languages. Bilingual Interactive Activation model ++ The BIA+ has been adapted again by Jacquet and French in 2002 into the BIA++ that acknowledged that recognition of a word belonging to an active language can be influenced by an orthographically similar word in the other, non-active language. One of their questions was how the non-active language entity can suppress a word in the active language. In the BIA++, the task module was left out and replaced by different sets of elementary processing operations to be activated depending on the task demands. In this way, the process becomes distributed task processing. Another adjustment they made was the adding of learning mechanisms. This would help improve the model so that it would not have to be manually adjusted after word recognition of for example homographs (room/room cream in Dutch). In this way, it would be easier to modify the semantic level without having to enter the semantics manually for each language continuously. To summarize, many models on the working of the bilingual mind have been discussed. Weinreich s spatial model on three possible organisations of the bilingual mind was one of the first models. The compound organisation only has a single connection between L1 conceptual storage and its lexicon and a single connection between the L2 conceptual 27

28 storage and its lexicon. The coordinate organisation shows a link from one lexicon to both the L1 conceptual storage and the L2 conceptual storage. The subordinate organisation has one lexicon as well but is not connected with both conceptual storages. The conceptual storage of L2 can only be accessed via the L1 conceptual storage. A later model by Kroll and Dijkstra, called the Revised Hierarchical model (1994), shows a separate lexical storage for L1 and L2 that have access to one another. The lexical storages have a connection with a conceptual knowledge for both languages. However, the model assumes that the L1 lexicon has more influence and that the lexical level is independent, which will later be proved wrong by other models that present an interactive system. A rather recent model, the Bilingual Interactive Activation model is a bilingual computer access model for bilingual word recognition. This model consists of one combined lexicon for all known words in Dutch and English and the activation of all lexical representation takes place independently of the language. This model has afterwards been revised into the BIA++. Even though the BIA++ is the model on which the study in this thesis is based, it is rather broad and rough. The model explains that the conceptual knowledge consists of one system for all languages; however, it does not explain how L1 influences the L2 concept. A means to detect a relation between the L1 and the L2 concept is by carrying out word association tasks. Word associations also expose differences between L1 and L2 concepts. The following paragraphs will discuss word association tasks and the reaction time experiments that were used for this study. 1.4 The elicitation of parts of the conceptual knowledge. To have a closer look at the differences and similarities between L1 and L2 conceptual representation of bilinguals, word associations of L2 learners and native speakers of a language can be compared for certain words. In this way, parts of the bilingual network 28

29 consisting of interconnected words and concepts can be exposed. Word associations will show an aspect of a conceptual representation. Word association tasks determine the extent to which the responses in the various experimental conditions are or are not the same (De Groot, 1992, 398). Word association tasks most likely also activate L1 associations when the L2 concept has to be accessed. The word associations of an individual with a certain target word will reveal parts of the concept. Different word association tasks of groups of individuals can be compared to see whether there is overlap or difference among the individuals. Associations that are mentioned most for certain target words will indicate that these associations are common to a group of individuals with the same language background. This suggests that when a certain association is given most in one language, it is a common association in that language. When associations are the same across languages, the conceptual representation is expected to be the same between languages (De Groot, 1992). However, differences between word associations among two or three groups of different language backgrounds would indicate that these groups have different conceptual representations. Although word association tasks give a qualitative view of differences in conceptual representation between native speakers and learners, it would be more convincing if these differences could be proved by means of reaction time experiments. RT experiments measure the time it takes a participant to react to a certain displayed stimulus after the displayed target. The shorter the reaction time to the target word the likelier it is that the target and the stimulus are related in the conceptual knowledge of the participants. A brief reaction time between a target and a stimulus for words that are already related in the word association tasks proves the relation between the target and the stimulus. Many studies and experiments have been done to prove the relation between words and concepts in the conceptual knowledge of L1 and L2 speakers of several languages. 29

30 1.5 Empirical evidence This section reports on studies on the relation between words and concepts in the conceptual knowledge of the bilingual mind. In her study What bilingual word associations can tell us (2006), Verspoor tested the differences in concepts of certain English words with native speakers in English and Dutch learners of English. She concluded that even advanced learners of an L2 make subtle errors because they transfer their L1 conceptual representation to the L2. This study contains a similar experiment and the same results are expected for advanced learners of Dutch. In the dissertation How much huis, Haus, or maison do you find in house? by S.W. van den Berg (2006), a word association study was done into conceptual transfer of advanced students of English. Her dissertation shows the importance of the selection of testing words and the different results between languages. The results of her experiment show that advanced students of English are still influenced by the L1 concepts. In another study by Dong et al., word association tests and reaction time experiments were done with Chinese learners of English. They concluded that conceptual differences tend to blend in the bilingual mind, depending on the level of proficiency. Verspoor and Lowie reported on a paper and pencil test into the conceptual differences in choosing prepositions between English and Dutch (Input Versus Transfer? The Role of Frequency and Similarity in the Acquisition of L2 Prepositions, 2004). The results show that the advanced learners of English no longer rely on Dutch in selecting prepositions (90). They no longer need their L1 in choosing prepositions in their L2. Van Hell and De Groot (1998) did a word association experiment and a reaction time experiment on conceptual representation in bilinguals. They found that concepts of bilinguals are mainly determined by word-type and grammatical class (p. 193). 30

31 Another study by Dong et al. (2005) uses the responses of word association tasks for a reaction time experiment. They did a reaction time experiment with Chinese and English bilinguals and they claim that bilinguals have a shared storage for their conceptual representations and asymmetrical links between different concepts. This means that some concepts do resemble the general L2 concept, whilst others are L1 concepts. Based on these results they presented a shared, distributed, asymmetrical model on the bilingual mind. Other previous lexical decision tasks argue that each language has an independent and a separate lexicon (Forster, K.I and Nan Jiang, 72). The reaction time experiment in this study aims to find out whether there is a separate mental lexicon for each language as well or whether there is an intermingled system in which all lexical items of different languages are represented with the same semantic information for each language. Lexical decision tasks have argued that languages have a separate and independent storage in the mind. The location of the mental lexicon in which the conceptual knowledge of languages is stored has not been determined. This lexical decision task will aim to contribute to the research on mental lexicon storage. 1.6 Conclusion Concepts are dynamic mental representation in the conceptual representation of the human mind. They are related to experience and knowledge. The outside world, experience and knowledge influence concepts and therefore people do no have identical concepts. A culture influences concepts as well and it is difficult to adapt to cultural differences, as Sharifian says about cognition, cultural conceptualization and language. Therefore, it also is difficult to acquire a language completely with its own set of concepts. Moreover, L1 concepts remain active while L2 is being used. Therefore, it is assumed that there is an interactive connection between the lexical knowledge of several languages. Several models discussed in this chapter 31