Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:35:56.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical aspects of standard dialect bilingualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Mirjam Woutersen ,
Albert Cox ,
Bert Weltens  and
Kees De Bot
Mirjam Woutersen*
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen
Albert Cox
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen
Bert Weltens
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen
Kees De Bot
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen
*
Mirjam Woutersen, University of Nijmegen, Erasmusplein 1, 6525 HT Nijmegen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weinreich (1953) distinguished three types of bilingualism: the compound, the coordinate, and the subordinative. In this article, we use his partition to describe the effects of a small typological distance on the organization of the bilingual lexicon. In order to do so, two relatively closely related varieties were used, standard Dutch and the dialect of Maastricht. Subjects had to carry out an auditory lexical decision task using the repetition priming paradigm. Stimuli under investigation were cognates and noncognates. There were two age groups (13 and 17 years old) and two language backgrounds (standard Dutch and Maastricht dialect). The results indicated no differences depending on age. With regard to language background, no interlingual repetition priming was found for the dialect speakers. However, in contrast with earlier findings on visual repetition priming, there were interlingual repetition effects not only for the cognates, but also for the noncognates when the standard speakers were concerned. Therefore, we concluded that, at least in the auditory modality, the dialect speakers in question are coordinate bilinguals and the standard speakers are subordinative bilinguals. Finally, it is shown that Weinreich's model in his pure form leads to unexplainable processes in language acquisition. For that reason, his distinctions are incorporated into the lexico-semantic model of Levelt (1989).

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 447 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Balota, D., & Lorch, R. (1986). Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision. Journal of Erperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12(3), 336–345.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's speaking model adapted. Applied Linguistics. 13(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., Cox, A., Ralston, S., Schaufeli, A., & Weltens, B. (1993). Lexical processing in bilinguals. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Word production and the bilingual lexicon. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 191–214). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristoffanini, P., Kirsner, K., & Milech, D. (1986). Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish-English cognates. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A, 367–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endepols, H. (1955). Diksjenaer van 't Mestreechs [Dictionary of the Maastricht dialect]. Maastricht: Gadet.Google Scholar
Ervin, S., & Osgood, C. (1954). Second language learning and bilingualism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49 ( suppl.), 139–146.Google Scholar
Green, D. (1993). Towards a model of L2 comprehension and production. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 249–277). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tasks: Support for a mixed representational system. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 27–51). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A., & Nas, G. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (1), 90–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kerkman, J. (1984). Woordherkenning in twee talen [Word recognition in two languages]. In Thomassen, A., Noordman, L., & Eling, P. (Eds.), Het Leesproces (pp. 139–152). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Kerkman, J., & de Bot, K. (1989). De organisatie van het tweetalig lexicon [The organization of the bilingual lexicon]. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 34, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, K., Brown, H., Abrol, S., Chadka, N., & Sharma, N. (1980). Bilingualism and lexical representation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, K., Lalor, E., & Hird, K. (1993). The bilingual lexicon: Exercise, meaning and morphology. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 215–248). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, K., Smith, M., Lockhart, R., & King, M. (1984). The bilingual lexicon: Languagespecific units in an integrated network. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. (1993). Accessing conceptual representations for words in a second language. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 53–81). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Clynes, D. (1990). Experimental Control System. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Monsell, S., Matthews, G., & Miller, D. (1992). Repetition of lexicalisation across languages: A further test of the locus of priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A (4), 763–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münstermann, H. (1989). Dialect loss in Maastricht: Attitudes, functions and structures. In Deprez, K. (Ed.), Language and intergroup relations (pp. 99–128). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Münstermann, H., & Hagen, T. (1986). Functional and structural aspects of dialect loss: A research plan and some first results. In Weltens, B., de Bot, K., & van Els, T., (Eds.), Language attrition in progress (pp. 75–96). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Neely, J. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In Besner, D. & Humphreys, G. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1981). Neurolinguistic organisation of a bilingual's two languages. In Cope-land, J. & Davis, P. (Eds.), The seventh Lacus forum (pp. 420–431). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1987). The assessment of bilingual aphasia. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Poulisse, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical communication strategies. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 157–189). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scarborough, D., Gerard, L., & Cortese, C. (1984). Independence of lexical access in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. New York: Linguistic Circle.Google Scholar