Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Michel Paradis
McGill University, Montreal
Abstract
The cognitive architecture of bilingual speakers contains at least four systems involved
in verbal communication (i.e., implicit linguistic competence, explicit metalinguistic
knowledge, pragmatic abilities and affect/motivation). The neurofunctional system that
subserves implicit linguistic competence contains as many subsystems as the speaker
has acquired languages. Each subsystem contains its phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics and lexicon. These language subsystems are differentially connected to a
single conceptual system that groups conceptual features together in accordance with
the specific lexical semantic constraints of words in each language and the relevant
pragmatic circumstances at the time of their use (Paradis 2004).
Three main points will be discussed: (1) the distinction between the cerebral repre-
sentation of concepts on the one hand and of lexical semantics on the other; (2) the
representation of languages (including lexical semantics) as dissociable subsystems of
the neurofunctional language system, connected to a single common conceptual system;
and (3) the lack of qualitative difference between unilingual and bilingual brains in terms
of conceptual organization and processing (though the contents of the representations
may, and often do, differ). To paraphrase Kecskes and Papp (2000: 37), the main ques-
tion will be: To what extent are the two languages [neuro] functionally independent, and
to what extent do they constitute a single [neuro]functional system? Special emphasis
will be placed on the relationship between the linguistic and conceptual levels.
1. B A C K G R O U N D
heard or seen, just as, in unilinguals, two different words will each evoke
their particular concepts (Paradis 2004).
Language A Language B
2. T H E N AT U R E O F R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S , T H E I R
O R G A N I Z AT I O N , A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D U S E A R E THE SAME
and their exact boundaries differ. Bilingual memory does not differ
in kind or in organizational principles from unilingual memory. It
can be said that bilingual memory differs from monolingual mem-
ory to a great extent (Kecskes & Papp 2003: 258) only with regard
to what is represented and processed, not how. The common concep-
tual base of bilinguals is identical in nature, organization, development
and use, to the unilingual conceptual base. It is simply bigger at
least in most cases (a unilingual literature professor may have more
language-based concepts than a bilingual shepherd). The content of
representations may be impoverished and/or deviant with respect to
native speakers norms but it is stored and processed in the same way
as any correct language-governed concept. Therefore, the cognitive
functioning of bilinguals is identical to that of unilingual speakers.
If, by cognitive functioning one means the actual contents of the
ideas and values processed in the speakers mind, then the differ-
ence between the cognitive functioning of a unilingual and a bilingual
speaker is of the same kind as that between a native Hungarian speaker
and a native American English speaker: What they think may differ
but the principles that underlie the thinking and feeling processes are
the same.
As Kecskes and Papp (2003: 258) rightly assert, Each language used
as an L1 of a community has a system of expectations and traditions.
But unilinguals living in a bicultural environment also have two sets
of expectations and traditions for their native words and expressions,
depending on the context of their use. Liberal may be considered a
compliment in one group, an insult in another. Just as one can pre-
dict that a German speakers semantic boundaries of the word Freund
(an intimate friend) will change after living in California for 20 years,
where you introduce someone you have met at the bus stop 15 minutes
ago as my friend Bill, one can expect the notion of cold weather to
go through the same type of rearrangement when an English speaker
moves from northern Vermont to Florida. Under the influence of the
frequent use of the other language, concepts are modified in bilinguals
to include or exclude a feature or features (i.e., static interference)
in the same way that concepts are modified by new experience in
unilinguals.
speaker learns the word ballon to refer to large balls. In a similar way,
for the native English toddler, there comes a time when doggie takes on
additional features and is no longer applicable to all four-legged animals,
and the word cat is learned. The reverse may also occur in both bilingual
and unilingual situations, when a new concept moves from the specific
(ones own house pet) to general (all dogs).
Cook (2003) considers that the notion of the integration continuum
is compatible with Paradis neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism in
unifying both L1 and L2 within the same architecture of the mind, but
that it differs in extending the continuum to concepts, whereas the neu-
rolinguistic theory of bilingualism has a single unvarying conceptual
system (p. 11). In the proposed theory, the bilingual conceptual sys-
tem has indeed a single conceptual system, but it is not unvarying.
Like the unilingual conceptual system (and perhaps even to a greater
extent), it varies over time as new L2 concepts are incorporated. Again,
the variation is in the contents, not in the nature or processing, of the
representations. The process of development is the same.
2.4. Similarity in Processing
In the bilingual language processing device, both language channels
interact during production, resulting sometimes in mixing, switching,
modifications and temporary dominance of either language (Kecskes &
Papp 2000). Similarly, sociolinguistic and/or dialectal registers may
interact in unilingual processing. As Labov (1972) pointed out, there
are no single-style speakers. Every speaker encountered by his research
team showed a shift in some linguistic variables as the context changed.
Unilinguals switch registers when addressing different people in differ-
ent circumstances. Unilingual parents do not speak to their children at
bedtime in the same register as they speak to a judge in a courtroom.
A change of register involves a change in lexicon, morphosyntax and
even pronunciation as does switching between languages. Unilinguals
can mix registers the way bilinguals mix languages for a number of pur-
poses, including jocularity. For example, a French person may say to
a friend: Hier jai rencontr Danielle et nous papotmes (Yesterday
I met Danielle and we chatted). The verb papoter (familiar register) is
used in the simple past (literary formal register), resulting in the intended
others are minor. Some elements are almost identical in any two given
languages. Bilingual language subsystems do not contain anything dif-
ferent from this; there is nothing specific to bilinguals. Whether one or
both of the bilinguals language subsystems does or does not contain
items that are identical to the corresponding native system does not
make them different in nature; some deviant elements in one language
are actually legitimate in others. Nothing sets apart the bilingual lan-
guage systems except their size and actual content, though this content
is of the same type and in most cases is quantitatively derived.
The underlying mechanisms that sustain the various representations
and their processing are the same in all individuals, whichever language
or languages they speak. The only difference, for speakers with imper-
fect competence in a second, third or fourth language, is the degree
of reliance on other systems within the verbal communicative system
(metalinguistic knowledge and pragmatics) in order to compensate for
an incomplete implicit linguistic competence system but this does not
affect the conceptual system subserved by declarative memory.
A good analogy to clarify what is proposed here might be a computer
program say, MS Word that underlies the typing of a document.
The program is invariable, irrespective of the characteristics of the texts
that are produced with its help. Documents may be typed in English
or German, in 10- or 14-point characters, in Times or Courier font;
parts of the text may be italicized or bolded; the text may be faultless
or riddled with typos. Nevertheless, the Word program that sustains
all the documents is the same. You may or may not actually use much
italicization of characters or a lot of underlining, but these functions
are available to you and to any user of MS Word. The texts differ only
(quantitatively) in the extent of the use of the available options.
To push the analogy a step further, let us assume that you type a text
in German, your second language. You may systematically fail to use
upper case for the initial letter of certain common nouns. Note that both
upper and lower case are available and upper case is used to a certain
extent when typing English. This is usually considered a transfer error
(an interference) that leads to an inaccurate text from the viewpoint of
standard German orthography. But all these transfers, errors and mod-
ifications are quantitative variations made possible by the underlying
3. C O N C L U S I O N
REFERENCES
Alajouanine, T., Pichot, P., and Durand, M. 1949. Dissociation des altrations phon-
tiques avec conservation relative de la langue la plus ancienne dans un cas
danarthrie pure chez un sujet franais bilingue. LEncphale, 28: 245265.
Alajouanine, T., and Lhermitte, F. 1964. Non-verbal communication in aphasia. In
de Reuck, A. V. S. and OConnor, M. (eds.), Disorders of language. London:
Churchill. 168182.
Cook, V. 2002. Background to the L2 user. In Cook, V. (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.128.
Cook, V. 2003. The changing L1 in the L2 users mind. In Cook, V. (ed.), Effects of the
second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 117.
De Groot, A. M. B. 2002. Lexical representation and lexical processing in the L2 user. In
Cook, V. (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 3263.
Francis, W. S. 2005. Bilingual semantic and conceptual representation. In Kroll, J. F.,
and de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic
perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 251267.
Gurd, J. M., and Marshall, J. C. 1993. Aphasia and intelligence. In Blanken, G.,
Dittmann, J., Grimm, H., Marshall, J. C., and Wallesch, K. (eds.), Linguistic
disorders and pathologies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 310317.
Harris, C., Aiiegi, A., and Gleason, J. 2003. Taboo words and reprimands elicit
greater autonomic reactivity in a first language than in a second language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 24: 561579.
Kecskes, I., and Papp, T. 2000. Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kecskes, I., and Papp, T. 2003. How to demonstrate the conceptual effect of L2 on L1?
Methods and techniques. In Cook, V. (ed.), Effects of the second language on the
first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 247265.
Kolers, P. A. 1968. Bilingualism and information processing. Scientific American,
218 (3): 7886.
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Lecours, A. R., and Joanette, Y. 1980. Linguistic and other psychological aspects of
paroxysmal aphasia. Brain and Language, 10: 123.
Marshall, J. C. 1984. Multiple perspectives on modularity. Cognition, 17: 209242.
McCormack, P. D. 1977. Bilingual linguistic memory: the independence-interdepend-
ence issue revisited. In Hornby, P. A. (ed.), Bilingualism. New York: Academic
Press. 5766.
Paradis, M. 1978. Bilingual linguistic memory: neurolinguistic considerations. Paper
presented at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting, Boston, 29
December.
Paradis, M. 1981. Neurolinguistic organization of a bilinguals two languages. LACUS
Forum, 7: 486494.
Paradis, M. 1997. Reprsentation lexicale et conceptuelle chez les bilingues: deux
langues, trois systmes. In Auger, J. and Rose, Y. (eds.), Explorations du lexique.
Qubec City: CIRAL. 1527.
Paradis, M. 2004. A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Pavlenko, A. 1999. New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 2: 208230.