University:
Boston University
Course:
CAS LX 250 | Introduction to Linguistics
Academic year:

2019
Views:

183

Pages:

19
Author:

larbiwxcvbn

Research in bilingualism Language control: how the target language is activated Models of language control  Selective attention to the target language  Inhibition of the non-target language Bilingual lexical retrieval Adapted from Costa, La Heij, & Navarette, 2006 Selective attention to the target language  According to Costa et al., 1999; Finkbeiner et al., 2006; there is activation in the non-target language but this activation is controlled by an attentional mechanism that effectively ignores competitors that are not from the target language. `  Inhibitory control model  In contrast, the Control Activation and Resource Model (Green, 1986; 1998) assumes that all activated alternatives potentially compete for selection  A specified inhibitory mechanism eventually resolves the competition by inhibition of candidates in the non-target language. Figure 3. Inhibitory Control model. Reprinted from "Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system," by D. Green, 1998, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1, p. 69. Copyright 1998 by Cambridge University Press. Road Map   Understand the nature of bilingual language processing  Understand the nature of language impairment in bilingual aphasia  Understand the different types of language therapy for bilingual aphasia What does this mean for bilingual aphasia? Studies that explore language impairment: • Lexical access (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006; Kiran & Lebel, 2007; Kiran & Tuchtenhagen, 2005; Lalor & Kirsner, 2001), • Syntactic processing (Hernandez et al., 2008; Kambanaros et al., 2012; Tschirren et al., 2011), • Orthographic processing (Raman & Weekes, 2005; Weekes, 2005, 2012;Yin et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2009). Studies that explore control impairment: • Pathological switching (Fabbro et al. 2000; Ansaldo et al. 1997), • Green et al. (2010), • Verreyt et al. (2013), • Gray & Kiran (under review). What does this mean for bilingual aphasia? Studies that explore language impairment: • Lexical access (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006; Kiran & Lebel, 2007; Kiran & Tuchtenhagen, 2005; Lalor & Kirsner, 2001), • Syntactic processing (Hernandez et al., 2008; Kambanaros et al., 2012; Tschirren et al., 2011), • Orthographic processing (Raman & Weekes, 2005; Weekes, 2005, 2012;Yin et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2009). Lexical semantic access in bilingual aphasia Normal Bilingual Adults: N = 12; Bilingual Aphasia Adults N = 13 (all participants Spanish-English speakers)  Task:  Boston Naming Test  Category Naming Test Picture set of 60 semantically related picture pairs  Category generation task (animals, food, clothing) (Spanish/English)  Dependent measures  Percent naming accuracy- BNT  Average percent naming accuracy across two semantically related sets  Results: bilingual patients with aphasia exhibit lexical retrieval deficits, but the underlying mechanism supporting lexical retrieval on naming tasks for bilingual patients with aphasia still mirrors bilingual language processing utilized by healthy bilinguals. Language impairment vs Proficiency 19 Spanish-English bilingual adults with aphasia (mean age 63.1, SD 17.82); 11 females  Bilingual Aphasia Test (BAT): English and Spanish + Part C  Boston Naming Test (BNT): English and Spanish  Pyramids and Palm Trees (PPT): Picture Version  Language Use Questionnaire (Kiran, Peña, Bedore, & Sheng, 2010) Framework of bilingual language procesing .51 Comprehension English .74 .68 .59 Word Recognition Sp Eng .71 Comprehension Spanish .48 .58 Semantics English .67 .57 Word Recognition Eng Sp .80 .68 .65 .58 Semantics Spanish .57 .47 Semantics Non-linguistic Expression English .55 .62 Expression Spanish .67 Translation Sp Eng .65 .86 Translation Eng Sp Language impairment vs. Proficiency What does this mean for bilingual aphasia? Studies that explore language impairment: • Lexical access (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006; Kiran & Lebel, 2007; Kiran & Tuchtenhagen, 2005; Lalor & Kirsner, 2001), • Syntactic processing (Hernandez et al., 2008; Kambanaros et al., 2012; Tschirren et al., 2011), • Orthographic processing (Raman & Weekes, 2005; Weekes, 2005, 2012;Yin et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2009). Studies that explore control impairment: • Pathological switching (Fabbro et al. 2000; Ansaldo et al. 1997), • Green et al. (2010), • Verreyt et al. (2013), • Gray & Kiran (under review). What does this mean for bilingual aphasia? Studies that explore control impairment: • Pathological switching (Fabbro et al. 2000; Ansaldo et al. 1997), • Green et al. (2010), • Verreyt et al. (2013), • Gray & Kiran (under review). Language control: pathological switching and mixing  Language switching: e.g., I want water. Tengo sed. [I am thirsty]  Language mixing:e.g., I want the hombre [man] to move. (Adrover-Roig et al., 2011)  In bilingual aphasia, it has been documented that patients can have problems controlling their two languages (Abutalebi, Miozzo, & Cappa, 2000; Aglioti & Fabbro, 1993; Aglioti, Beltramello, Girardi, & Fabbro, 1996; Ansaldo & Marcotte, 2007; Ansaldo, Saidi, & Ruiz, 2000; Fabbro, Peru, & Skrap, 1997; Fabbro, Skrap, & Aglioti, 2000; Goral et al., 2006; Keane & Kiran, in press; for a review see Ansaldo, Marcotte, Scherer, & Raboyeau, 2008). Green et al. (2010)  2 bilingual adults with aphasia (L1 Spanish/L1 French, L2 English)  Parallel recovery/impairment  12 healthy non-native English bilingual controls  14 healthy native English monolingual controls Tasks Results Patient 1: Patient 2: Linguistic Task Eng lexical decision Stroop Linguistic Task Eng lexical decision X Stroop lexical decision X Stroop Non-Linguistic Task L1 Eng Flanker Non-Linguistic Task L1 Eng X X Flanker ok ok ok Flanker X Verreyt et al. (2013)  1 French (L1) - Dutch (L2) bilingual adult with aphasia  Differential language impairment (L1 is stronger than L2) Tasks Task General lexical decision Selective French lexical decision Selective Dutch lexical decision Flanker Stimuli in each lexical decision task: 30 Dutch-French cognates 30 Dutch noncognates 30 French noncognates 90 non-words Results Task Result General lexical decision cognate facilitation Selective French lexical decision no effect of cognate facilitation cognates identified with less accuracy Selective Dutch lexical decision than Dutch non-cognates Flanker impaired control Gray & Kiran (under revision)  10 Spanish-English bilingual adults with aphasia  30 Spanish-English, age matched neurologically healthy bilingual adults Experimental Paradigms: Linguistic Task Semantic judgment Translation (Tr) Semantic (S) Unrelated (un) Semantic Translation (STr) Unrelated Translation (UnTr) Non-Linguistic Task Flanker Road Map  Understand the different types of language therapy for bilingual aphasia