WH-âQuestions in Bimodal Bilinguals: Evidence for Language ...

WH-‐Questions in Bimodal Bilinguals: 

Evidence for Language Synthesis 

Diane Lillo-‐Mar-n 

University of Connec/cut 

Ronice Müller de Quadros 

Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina 

Deborah Chen Pichler 

Gallaudet University 

Helen Koulidobrova 

University of Connec/cut 

FEAST – Warsaw 

June 2012

Acknowledgments 

• Warm thanks to: 

– Bimodal bilingual children and their families 

– Research assistants and collaborators 

• Financial support from: 

– Award Number R01DC009263 from the Na-onal Ins-tutes of Health 

(Na-onal Ins-tute on Deafness and Other Communica-on Disorders). 

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not 

necessarily represent the official views of the NIDCD or the NIH. 

– The Gallaudet Research Ins-tute. 

– CNPq (Brazilian Na-onal Council of Technological and Scien-fic 

Development) Grant #200031/2009-‐0 and #470111/2007-‐0. 

2

Research Questions 

• How do the languages of a bilingual interact? 

• How do children develop as bilinguals? 

• How is this process different for bimodal bilinguals? 

Here: 

• Data from children acquiring ENGLISH and AMERICAN 

SIGN LANGUAGE (ASL); or BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE (BP) 

and BRAZILIAN SIGN LANGUAGE (Libras). 

• Model of Bilingual Language Synthesis, using concepts of 

Minimalism and Distributed Morphology. 

• Conclusion: both languages are ac-ve and interact in 

mul-ple ways. 

3

Model – Language Synthesis 

Roots, Morphemes (L x U L y ) 

Syntac-c Deriva-on 

Vocabulary Inser-on (L x U L y ) 

Phonology (L x U L y ) 

Phonological 

representa-on 

Meaning 

4

Foundations of the Model 

• MacSwan (1999); González-‐Vilbazo & López (2011) 

• Minimalist approach to code-‐switching 

• Universal computa-onal system 

• Den Dikken (2011) 

• Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) 

• “When it comes to Vocabulary Inser-on, bilinguals obviously 

differ from monolinguals in having a larger pool of VIs to pick and 

choose from — so there will be occasions on which a par-cular 

terminal morpheme will have a beper fit for an L1/L2 bilingual 

than it would have for a monolingual speaker of L1.” 

5

Consequences of the model 

• Roots and morphemes from both languages can contribute to 

a single output 

è’transfer’ 

• At Vocabulary Inser-on, elements from either language can 

be inserted, as long as all featural requirements are sa-sfied 

ècode-‐switching 

• When two independent sets of ar-culators are available, 

lexical items from both languages are possible 

è code-‐blending 

Language Synthesis 

6

Esplugish 

• Spanish/German used by students at the German School of 

Barcelona 

“As a result of this mul-lingual environment, the 

students of the school code-‐switch oten when 

talking to one another. The students are proud of 

their code-‐switching and have a posi-ve autude 

towards it as a badge of iden-ty as many of them 

confirmed in individual interviews. They have even 

given it a name, ‘Esplugish’” 

(González-‐Vilbazo & López, in press) 

7

Esplugish 

• Light verb construc-on: 

• When the VP is selected by the light verb hacer (Sp), 

the structure of the VP itself becomes Spanish – even 

though the lexical items are German and show 

German structure within DP. 

(González-‐Vilbazo & López in press) 

8

Bimodal Bilinguals 

9

Bimodal Bilinguals 

• Bilinguals using a sign language and a spoken language 

• Studies with adults (Emmorey et al. 2008) 

• Code-‐switching is rare 

• Code-‐blending is common (36% of all produc-on; 98% 

of all mixing behavior); NB: not equivalent to SimCom. 

• Use of ASL word order in English is observed 

Casey & Emmorey (2009) 

10

Coda-‐talk 

• “Coda talk usually takes place in an all-‐ Coda 

environment, and the gramma-cal structures oten 

follow ASL, not English, a sort of ‘spoken ASL.’” (Bishop 

2010: 207) 

• Includes use of sign, speech, code-‐blending and 

occasional code-‐switching. 

11

Examples of coda talk 

Many -mes in school me want show videos… 

where? YouTube. Many many computers in 

school block-‐block-‐block. Me say FSH. 

Codatalk website: hpp://www.codatalk.com/index.html 

Some-mes codas, when they talk with each 

other, use different sound voice…Coda can talk 

like ASL order, that true, yes! 

Coda Brothers, Episode 11: hpp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puQ-‐ 

D89Nc7g

Binational Bimodal Bilingual (BiBiBi) 

Language Acquisition Project 

• We examine the simultaneous development of a sign 

language and a spoken language in two language pairs: 

• Brazilian Sign Language (Libras) and Brazilian 

Portuguese (BP) 

• American Sign Language (ASL) and English (E) 

• Par-cipants (kodas – kids of Deaf adults) have at least 

one Deaf parent and rela-vely equal exposure to both 

speech and sign. 

UFSC 

UConn 

Gallaudet 

13

Evidence from WH-‐ 

Questions 

14

WH-‐Questions in English and BP 

• English and BP 

• WH-‐phrase fronted (spec, CP) 

• WH-‐phrase in-‐situ (‘Common Ground’ ques-ons; Pires 

& Taylor 2007) 

Ø BP is less restric-ve than English in the licensing of WH-in-‐situ 

 

15

WH-‐questions in ASL and Libras 

• ASL and Libras display a variety of WH-‐ques-on 

structures (Nunes & Quadros 2004; Petronio & Lillo-‐ 

Mar-n 1997) wh 

– WH-‐ini/al WHERE YOU BUY COFFEE 

wh 

– WH-‐in-‐situ YOU HOPE WHO WIN GAME 

– WH-‐element in both ini/al and final posi/on 

(Doubling) 

wh 

WHO JOHN SEE WHO 

– WH-‐element in final posi/on (Emphasis) 

wh 

JOHN SEE YESTERDAY WHO 

16

Predictions of the Synthesis 

model for acquisition 

Sign➛Speech effects (differences from monolinguals): 

• Earlier use of WH-‐in-‐situ with spoken English or BP 

• WH-‐final (emphasis) or WH-‐double structures with 

spoken English or BP 

Ø NB: Children’s uperances are usually not long enough to 

dis-nguish in-‐situ objects from final (emphasis), or in-‐situ 

subjects from letward moved. We will use the terms ‘ini-al’ and 

‘final’ in their surface string senses. 

Speech➛Sign effects 

• More frequent use of WH-‐ini-al structures with signed 

ASL or Libras than for monolinguals 

• Overt code-‐switching or code-‐blending 

17

Sign Language Structures 

in Speech 

18

WH-‐in-‐situ in ASL-‐inLluenced 

English 

• Assume: 

ASL 

C CG [u-‐WH] 

C [*u-‐WH] 

C [u-‐WH] 

English 

C CG [u-‐WH] 

C [*u-‐WH] 

• During the deriva-on, if a child chooses the ASL C [u-‐WH] 

in a sentence with English words, the in-‐situ structure 

will result. 

² This proposal builds on Tieu’s (2010) proposed account 

for bilingualism effects in Cantonese-‐English bilingual 

children. 

19

WH-‐Linal (emphasis) and doubling 

in sign-‐inLluenced speech 

• Doubling in ASL and Libras can be described as resul-ng 

from choosing a func-onal element with a strong 

[+focus] feature. 

• Morphological fusion of the focus head with the focused 

element permits both copies to be pronounced (Nunes & 

Quadros 2004). 

• If a head with this feature is chosen during a ‘spoken 

language’ deriva-on, the non-‐target structure will result. 

20

Study 1: Spontaneous Production 

• Video-‐taped naturalis-c sessions, weekly, alterna-ng 

between sign target and speech target (by changing 

interlocutors) 

• All interlocutors are bilingual, some-mes code-‐blend 

with the children 

• Most of the recording environments are clearly bilingual 

Name Lang’s Age Range Sess’ns # U4’s 

Ben ASL / E 1;11-‐3;03 18 ~ 6000 

Tom ASL / E 1;11-‐4;05 31 ~ 6000 

Igor Libras / BP 2;01-‐3;02 7 ~ 3000 

21

Data coding for bimodal bilinguals 

• Files were searched for the occurrence of WH-‐phrases 

• Lines with WH-‐phrases were coded with review of the 

audio/video 

• Usable uperances were coded as WH-‐ini-al, WH-‐in-‐situ/ 

final, WH-‐doubled (‘other’ category excluded from 

current analysis) 

• Excluded formulaic “WH + that” 

22

Study 1: Monolingual English 

comparison data 

Name Age Range Sess’ns # U4’s 

Adam 2;03-‐2;11 12 ~ 10,000 

Eve* 1;06-‐2;03 20 

Naomi* 1;03-‐4;09 93 ~ 12,000 

Nina 1;11-‐2;11 38 ~ 22,000 

CHILDES; MacWhinney (2000) 

*Results for Eve and Naomi from Tieu (2010) 

23

Study 1: Monolingual BP 

comparison data 

Name Age Range Sess’ns 

N 1 2;00-‐4;00 53 

Gabriela 2 2;04-‐3;10 26 

1 

Grolla (2005) 

2 

Sikansi (1999) 

24

Study 1: Results – up to 2;11 

Par7cipant 

Sentence-ini7al 

 

In situ/Final Double Earliest In 

situ/Final 

Ben *.865 .02 .115 2;00 

Tom *.92 .07 0 2;04 

Igor *.94 .01 .05 2;01 

Adam .998 .002 2;08 

Eve 1.0 0 -‐-‐ 

Naomi 1.0 0 -‐-‐ 

Nina .993 .007 2;09 

N 1.0 0 (3;09) 

Gabriela 1.0 0 -‐-‐ 

25

Study 1: Results – after 2;11 

• Ben and Tom – con-nue to use some WH-‐in situ/final, 

but no doubles 

• Adam – produces more (generally licit) WH-‐in situ 

star-ng around 3;02 (Tieu 2010) 

• Igor – stops using non-‐fronted WH (no data coded past 

3;02) 

• N – first WH-‐in situ at 3;09 (Grolla 2005) 

26

Study 2: Elicited Production 

• Modified from Thornton (1990) 

• Experimenter 1 – storyteller; Experimenter 2 – ‘cat’. 

• Exp 1 tells a story with toys. Some part of the story is missing, 

so the Exp prompts the child to ask the cat for informa-on. 

• Example lead-‐in: 

• “It’s lunch -me under the sea. SpongeBob could eat the 

pineapple or the banana. So, SpongeBob will eat something. Ask 

the cat what.” 

27

Study 2: Results – US 

Par-cipants: 

5 Kodas, 5;01-‐6;00 

Subject WH-‐Ques7on Produc7on 

English wh-‐ques-ons 

5-‐year olds 

ini-al 

final 


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Object WH-‐Ques7on Produc7on 

Adjunct WH-‐Ques7on Produc7on 









0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

28

Study 2: Results – Brazil 

Par-cipants: 

2 Kodas, 4;09-‐7;04 

BP wh-‐ques-ons 






double 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 


Adjunct WH-‐Ques7on 

Produc7on 





double 





double 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

29

Study 1+2: Discussion 

Sign à Speech effects 

• Structures from the sign languages occasionally appear 

in the children’s speech at an early age. 

• These types of structures appear in special sociolinguis-c 

contexts among Coda adults. 

• On our approach, the language faculty makes such forms 

available; children simply use such possible forms. 

• What children need to learn: how and when to suppress 

language synthesis forms. 

30

Spoken Language 

Structures in Sign 

31

WH-‐fronting in Speech-‐ 

inLluenced Sign 

• Both the sign languages allow WH-‐fronted structures in 

addi-on to other ones. 

• Young monolingual signing children use the double 

structures in spontaneous produc-on as early as 2;0; 

final and double structures appear in elicited produc-on 

of 5-‐ and 6-‐year-‐olds. 

• Speech structures may be said to appear in sign if WH-ini7al 

is over-‐used compared to sign monolinguals. 

• Blending, mouthing, and other indica-ons of the spoken 

languages may also appear. 

32


• We searched BEN’s earliest ASL sessions for all occurrences of 

WH-‐phrases. 

• BEN’s data are compared with two monolingual Deaf ASL 

signers from Lillo-‐Mar-n & Quadros (2006) 

• Summary of results: At an early age, BEN produces all three 

of the WH-‐ques7on structures permi4ed for ASL 

33


Results 

Age 

Range 

# Sessns #U4s Sent-ini7al 

 

In situ/ 

Final 

Double 

BEN 

1;04-‐ 

2;00 

17 ~3320 .46 .31 .23 

Age of 

first… 

Ini7al 

In-‐situ/ 

Final 

Double 

BEN 1;07 1;08 1;09 

monolingual 

Deaf ASL signers 

ABY 1;09 1;09 2;01 

SAL 1;08 1;07 1;08 

34


Speech➛Sign effect 

• Same method as Study 2, using signed s-muli 

• Example lead-‐in (translated): 

• “Olivia’s family has finished dinner. Someone has to wash the 

dishes. I think it’s Dad’s turn to wash the dishes. Ask the cat who 

she thinks.” 

35


Comparison data from 

Lillo-‐Mar-n (2000) 

Par-cipants: 

17 Deaf children (na-ve 

signers), 4;01-‐6;09 

36

Study 4: Results – US 


Par-cipants: 

6 Kodas, 5;03-‐7;09 



ASL wh-‐ques-ons 




double 

86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100% 












double 


double 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

37

Study 4: Results – Brazil 

Par-cipants: 

3 Kodas, 4;09-‐7;04 



Libras wh-‐ques-ons 

7-‐year-‐olds 



double 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 










double 


double 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

38

Study 3+4: Discussion 

• Like Deaf signing children, the kodas have available the 

different possible posi-ons of WH-‐elements at an early 

age. 

• There is evidence for spoken language structures 

appearing in sign during the elicited produc-on study: 

• Strong predominance of WH-‐ini-al order 

• Mouthing from English and BP 

• Use of other spoken-‐language structures (e.g. word 

order, preposi-ons) 

39

General Discussion 

40

Discussion 

• The kinds of ‘mixed’ structures we see are also found in 

adults. 

• Codas – Bishop (2010) 

• Esplurgish – Gonzalez-‐Vilbazo & López (2011) 

• Not only ‘regular’ code-‐switching, but also the use of 

structure from one language with words in another 

language must be compa-ble with the structure of the 

language faculty. 

• Such cases of ‘cross-‐linguis-c influence’ are not 

necessarily restricted to developing grammars. 

41

Summary and Conclusion 

• The Synthesis model predicts the observed phenomena: 

• Sign language structures in spoken language (WH-‐in-‐situ/final, 

double) 

• Spoken language structures in sign language (over-‐use of WH-ini-al) 

 

• Selec-on of Roots and Morphemes from L x and L y can 

lead to syntac-c ‘transfer’; while selec-on of Vocabulary 

Items from L x and L y can lead to ‘switching’. 

• Language synthesis emerges from the structure of the 

language faculty when more than one lexicon is 

available. 

42

WH-âQuestions in Bimodal Bilinguals: Evidence for Language ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

WH-âQuestions in Bimodal Bilinguals: Evidence for Language ...