Limits...
Language choice in bimodal bilingual development.

Lillo-Martin D, de Quadros RM, Chen Pichler D, Fieldsteel Z - Front Psychol (2014)

Bottom Line: Even at the earliest observations, the children produced more signed utterances with Deaf interlocutors and more speech with hearing interlocutors.However, while three of the four children produced >75% speech alone in speech target sessions, they produced <25% sign alone in sign target sessions.Our results indicate that these children are sensitive to the language used by their interlocutors, while showing considerable influence from the dominant community language.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut Storrs, CT, USA ; Haskins Laboratories New Haven, CT, USA.

ABSTRACT
Bilingual children develop sensitivity to the language used by their interlocutors at an early age, reflected in differential use of each language by the child depending on their interlocutor. Factors such as discourse context and relative language dominance in the community may mediate the degree of language differentiation in preschool age children. Bimodal bilingual children, acquiring both a sign language and a spoken language, have an even more complex situation. Their Deaf parents vary considerably in access to the spoken language. Furthermore, in addition to code-mixing and code-switching, they use code-blending-expressions in both speech and sign simultaneously-an option uniquely available to bimodal bilinguals. Code-blending is analogous to code-switching sociolinguistically, but is also a way to communicate without suppressing one language. For adult bimodal bilinguals, complete suppression of the non-selected language is cognitively demanding. We expect that bimodal bilingual children also find suppression difficult, and use blending rather than suppression in some contexts. We also expect relative community language dominance to be a factor in children's language choices. This study analyzes longitudinal spontaneous production data from four bimodal bilingual children and their Deaf and hearing interlocutors. Even at the earliest observations, the children produced more signed utterances with Deaf interlocutors and more speech with hearing interlocutors. However, while three of the four children produced >75% speech alone in speech target sessions, they produced <25% sign alone in sign target sessions. All four produced bimodal utterances in both, but more frequently in the sign sessions, potentially because they find suppression of the dominant language more difficult. Our results indicate that these children are sensitive to the language used by their interlocutors, while showing considerable influence from the dominant community language.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Synthesis model (Lillo-Martin et al., 2012; Quadros et al., 2013).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4202712&req=5

Figure 1: Synthesis model (Lillo-Martin et al., 2012; Quadros et al., 2013).

Mentions: In a series of works, we have been developing such a model (Lillo-Martin et al., 2010, 2012; Koulidobrova, 2012; Quadros et al., 2013). Our model, illustrated in Figure 1, adopts the viewpoint that bilingualism should be explained using the same architecture of linguistic behavior as required for monolinguals (MacSwan, 2000, 2005). Bilinguals simply have additional materials to work with, but they must adhere to the overall grammatical possibilities and constraints placed on any language. We start with a standard generative perspective incorporating concepts of distributed morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993; Chomsky, 1995). The input to a derivation contains abstract roots and morphemes. For a bilingual, there are two sets of items to choose from for every derivation. During the syntax, featural requirements must be satisfied; and in some cases, elements from language A may satisfy the requirements of elements from language α, leading to structures with cross-linguistic influence or transfer. At the point of Vocabulary Insertion, elements from either language may be inserted, as long as all featural requirements are satisfied, leading to code-switching. Finally, when two independent sets of articulators are available, lexical items from both languages are possible, making code-blending possible. All three of these outcomes are considered natural consequences of our Synthesis model, so-called because it offers a picture of the combinatorial possibilities allowed by the language architecture.


Language choice in bimodal bilingual development.

Lillo-Martin D, de Quadros RM, Chen Pichler D, Fieldsteel Z - Front Psychol (2014)

Synthesis model (Lillo-Martin et al., 2012; Quadros et al., 2013).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4202712&req=5

Figure 1: Synthesis model (Lillo-Martin et al., 2012; Quadros et al., 2013).
Mentions: In a series of works, we have been developing such a model (Lillo-Martin et al., 2010, 2012; Koulidobrova, 2012; Quadros et al., 2013). Our model, illustrated in Figure 1, adopts the viewpoint that bilingualism should be explained using the same architecture of linguistic behavior as required for monolinguals (MacSwan, 2000, 2005). Bilinguals simply have additional materials to work with, but they must adhere to the overall grammatical possibilities and constraints placed on any language. We start with a standard generative perspective incorporating concepts of distributed morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993; Chomsky, 1995). The input to a derivation contains abstract roots and morphemes. For a bilingual, there are two sets of items to choose from for every derivation. During the syntax, featural requirements must be satisfied; and in some cases, elements from language A may satisfy the requirements of elements from language α, leading to structures with cross-linguistic influence or transfer. At the point of Vocabulary Insertion, elements from either language may be inserted, as long as all featural requirements are satisfied, leading to code-switching. Finally, when two independent sets of articulators are available, lexical items from both languages are possible, making code-blending possible. All three of these outcomes are considered natural consequences of our Synthesis model, so-called because it offers a picture of the combinatorial possibilities allowed by the language architecture.

Bottom Line: Even at the earliest observations, the children produced more signed utterances with Deaf interlocutors and more speech with hearing interlocutors.However, while three of the four children produced >75% speech alone in speech target sessions, they produced <25% sign alone in sign target sessions.Our results indicate that these children are sensitive to the language used by their interlocutors, while showing considerable influence from the dominant community language.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut Storrs, CT, USA ; Haskins Laboratories New Haven, CT, USA.

ABSTRACT
Bilingual children develop sensitivity to the language used by their interlocutors at an early age, reflected in differential use of each language by the child depending on their interlocutor. Factors such as discourse context and relative language dominance in the community may mediate the degree of language differentiation in preschool age children. Bimodal bilingual children, acquiring both a sign language and a spoken language, have an even more complex situation. Their Deaf parents vary considerably in access to the spoken language. Furthermore, in addition to code-mixing and code-switching, they use code-blending-expressions in both speech and sign simultaneously-an option uniquely available to bimodal bilinguals. Code-blending is analogous to code-switching sociolinguistically, but is also a way to communicate without suppressing one language. For adult bimodal bilinguals, complete suppression of the non-selected language is cognitively demanding. We expect that bimodal bilingual children also find suppression difficult, and use blending rather than suppression in some contexts. We also expect relative community language dominance to be a factor in children's language choices. This study analyzes longitudinal spontaneous production data from four bimodal bilingual children and their Deaf and hearing interlocutors. Even at the earliest observations, the children produced more signed utterances with Deaf interlocutors and more speech with hearing interlocutors. However, while three of the four children produced >75% speech alone in speech target sessions, they produced <25% sign alone in sign target sessions. All four produced bimodal utterances in both, but more frequently in the sign sessions, potentially because they find suppression of the dominant language more difficult. Our results indicate that these children are sensitive to the language used by their interlocutors, while showing considerable influence from the dominant community language.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus