Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Division of English Language and Literature
English in the Era of Globalization
Fall 2007
Week 7 - Answers
Kecskes and Papp 2000, Chapter 3
1. Where do you stand on the issue of multi-lingual language systems integration?
The basic idea underlying this question is how closely languages may rely on an underlying conceptual base. It should be clear to all of us at this point that language is an encapsulation the world around us. This includes both the real world (the concrete) and the world we create in our minds (the abstract). By using the word `encapsulation` what we are really highlighting is the fact that particular concepts are, to a certain extent, frozen in time or captured by language as they are turned into words. Language does this by codifying these concepts. It is important to realize though that this linguistic code (word) has a conceptual basis from which it springs, or is developed from (based on). Before we can begin to answer this question we need to understand these basic ideas about what language itself is and how language itself works.
Once we understand that language comes from an underlying conceptual base then we have to start thinking about what happens when one person controls or has developed control over more than one code. To put the question as simply as possible, do speakers of more than one language think differently in each of those languages? This is the million-dollar question for bilingual research and probably something you want to know as well. What we get in this chapter is a fairly detailed discussion on some of the most important results relating to this question. Before we delve into these issues though I really want you just to think a little bit about yourself and how you go about using your own different languages. Can you feel any differences between elements of your different languages in relation to some sort of underlying conceptual meanings?
If you are like most bilinguals you will be quite sensitive to some of these differences, much more sensitive than a monolingual might be (monolinguals have different linguistic systems or registers within the one language they speak so they also shift codes, albeit to a lesser degree than bilinguals). You will probably be able to feel that not all elements of each of your languages are the same. If this is indeed the case, as we are quite sure it is even in languages closely related both linguistically and culturally, then we need to argue that the languages or the underlying conceptual basis of the languages are, at least to a certain extent, different and separated. In the recent past because of the assumption of monolingual dominance within the field of language study, including language acquisition studies and not just radical linguistics, there has been an over-evaluation of the separation hypothesis (the idea that each language one person might have is a separate system and unaffected by other linguistic systems). Theoretical linguists like Chomsky have claimed that concepts are separate across language. This would mean in the end that different linguistic systems are totally separate from each other. But there is also the other side of the coin which is the integration aspect.
The position we are going to take in this class is similar to one that Kecskes and Papp take in their book; namely, that different linguistic systems need to be integrated at some point, well at least for these systems to function efficiently. We are going to follow their proposal that there is a Common Underlying Conceptual Base (CUCB) for all the different languages that a person might speak. The evidence for this is overwhelming certainly in bilingual studies, but surprisingly also in studies of monolingual language use. Let`s look at this for a second.
When a speaker goes to use their first language they don`t just to use any possible sequence of code (word or set of words). A speaker has to go through a series of careful decision-making processes, analyzing several different aspects of the context in order to determine which particular sequence of code will be the most effective in that particular situation. For example, if somebody accidentally steps on your foot you are going to say something, but what you will stay will vary tremendously depending on the situation. Such factors which must be taken into consideration will include things like:
Who stepped on your foot?
How hard did they step on your foot?
What kind of shoe were you wearing?
Were you wearing any shoes?
Did they kick you at the same time?
Where were you when they stepped on your foot?
What were you doing when they stepped on your foot?
Etc.
If the person is older than you and really didn`t mean to step on your foot and didn`t actually step on your foot too hard, then you will say something vastly different than if they were young, stepped on your foot on purpose, and did it in a particularly vicious way while you were wearing no shoes and they were wearing steel ones. The bottom line is that for all of us, monolinguals included, we have a vast array of different things we can say in a similar type of situation. The vast array of linguistic forms we have stored in our brains comprise a tremendous arsenal for creating meaning. In more technical language, we can say that our form to function mappings are highly complex indeed. For every situation we have possibly hundreds or thousands all different forms we can use and we must choose which one(s) is/are the most suitable. Language use is, therefore, about making the right choices. Language learning is about internalizing that vast array of forms in addition to when and how they each can, and should, be used according to norms of the society one is using the language in. Multilingualism, for obvious reasons, involves the same set of choices but with some added dimensions. While a monolingual speaker of English may need to decide between saying something like, Excuse me that was my foot.or What the hell, dammit!! a multilingual or bilingual speaker can decide between different actual language codes. Really it`s the same exact thing but to a much more variant degree.
Another thing that we must understand is that in a bilingual or multilingual situation languages are not equal. In multilingual societies different languages are used for very different specific purposes and while there is sometimes overlap between what each language is supposed to do there are also areas (functions) where one language takes precedence over another. Also in multilingual societies different languages are valued and assessed differently. Based on this, it would seem very strange to argue that a multilingual individual would have equal competence in both or all of her different languages. This simply does not occur, except in the most rarest of circumstances.
Despite all these differences, different languages are more similar than they are different, particularly structurally, and do share similar systems.
2. Briefly outline Levelt`s (1989) model.
Levelt`s (1989) model has been so popular and is still used today, despite its age, because it is one of the few models of language production and processing which actually allows for the decision-making which we mentioned in the above answer. The real beauty of his model is the conceptualizer. It is in the conceptualizer that a speaker actually decides which, of the many possible forms they might have available to them, particular form they are going to use for that situation. In order to make this important decision, different information must be analyzed and weighed. The model recognizes the importance of both macro and micro planning for message generation. Second language acquisition researchers have jumped onto this model because it is flexible enough to allow for different conceptual bases to be used in message generation. This is possible because the formulator is separate from the conceptualizer.
Levelt`s model is especially interesting for us here because it is been made on purpose to be able to account for differences between written speech and spoken language. In looking at monolingual language usage we find that even though people are making particular decisions about which forms they can use in certain situations because these are still very limited in relation to multilingual situations for example, these decisions tend to be automatic. Monolingual speakers simply are not aware of the decisions they are making when they are going about using their language in the spoken form and in speaking situations. When monolinguals, however, are engaged in producing written speech, as we have already discussed, they need to consciously make decisions about the type of language they are going to use. This is because in writing a language user has a much larger inventory of potential forms to use, and which must be used for the writing to actually be very good. This distinction between spoken language and written speech has parallels in the monolingual/multilingual distinction. Multilinguals, even in spoken language, have more forms available, which means they must have more conscious control over these different forms. This is particularly important because using the wrong form in a multilingual situation will have much more dire results that it will in a monolingual situation. Multilinguals must plan their language use much more effectively then monolinguals all the time. Sometimes their very survival depends on it. Levelt's model, again because of the distinction between the different levels, allows for such considerations.
3. How are concepts lexicalized and what role does culture play in this process?
The answer here is really simple. Concepts are lexicalized through experience. In the initial stages of a naturalistic type of language acquisition one usually contacts concepts through direct contact with the world. The concepts that we first lexicalize are the ones that are most important to us and most meaningful to us. Simply put, we lexicalize concepts in context. Now, at this point we should clearly understand that any kind of context is going to be embedded or surrounded by a particular cultural setting. It is in this way that we can understand that the way in which concepts come to be encapsulated through the lexical process is somehow part of a cultural process. If culture does not exactly manage the process it has at least an important presence in the process. Culture affects this because culture mediates contact with the infinite world by determining what is important or not. In short, culture in the form of our parents, grandparents and other people, in addition to what is put in front of us, determines where we focus our attention - what we will notice and encode and what will be simply ignored.
4. How might concepts be linked between different languages and what is said to affect this?
The authors claim, and rightfully so, that there is no doubt that there is a common underlying conceptual base for all languages that a person might speak. This, however, does not mean that there are not language specific concepts which may or may not be able to be used in one or the other of the languages a person might have. We all know from our own experience with language, and we have talked about this already in class, that there are some concepts which do not transfer from one language to another. While they might share certain specific elements, or what we might call nodes, they do not share enough nodes to be able to actually move into a common conceptual store (this is particulary true because it is the nodes which they do not share which are more commonly activated in language use). It is these concepts, and their lexicalized encapsulations which can only be used in one language.
While it is true that any language can talk about anything in the world, certain languages have encapsulated or lexicalized particular aspects efficiently or more efficiently. Think about trying to explain to somebody who doesn't know any Korean about a typical type of kalbi or any other distinctive Korean food item. Think about trying to explain what you had for dinner last night (provided you had a traditional Korean dinner) to someone who has never been to Korea or eaten Korean food. If they're really interested and they want to know in detail what everything you ate is like it's going to take a very long time to explain in a different language, English, for example, all the different that were things on the table. If you're explaining it to somebody who has experience in Korea and Korean food and knows some of the words for the different types of kimchi, for example, then you can use Korean terms (lexicalized items) to explain everything much more efficiently. Such an example shows how different languages encode different concepts which often can't be simply rendered in a different language. Yet, to focus on these specific highly culture-specific examples, though, is to deny the very basic element or essence of the common underlying conceptual store and language acquisition in general.
One of the main controversies in this underlying conceptual store idea is to try to determine first and foremost if there are universals in concepts and secondly if concepts can transfer from one linguistic system to another. The answer to this first question is not at all clear but what is clear is that even if there are universal concepts which are biologically endowed (see Wierzbicka, 1996) as opposed to experientially or culturally learned (see Hamers and Blanc, 2000) then they are very few indeed (Wierzbicka (1996) lists 56). Once more, any biological type of concept would have to be high really abstract so that it would be able to fit into any type of culturally based conceptual store system. So, this question, while it is one that people focus on a tremendous amount due to the effects all of generative linguistics and the dominance of monolingual points of view, really isn't particularly important.
What is more important is the second question which tries to focus on taking concepts or ideas originally encoded in one linguistic system and trying to determine if they can be recoded or somehow transferred into another system. An extremely important part of this transfer process would be quite has come to be known as neutralization. Neutralization is a process whereby certain particular aspects of a concept will be pruned away so that some of the more general aspects remain. This happens, as with everything else in the brain, based on use and saliency. These general aspects will be heightened in the conceptual store so that the concept appeals to and can actually function in all of the different linguistic codes a speaker might have. For neutralization to occur, as implied by the comment above related to use and saliency, the person must have changed the way they think about these words - concepts. Similarities must become more important (salient).
In reality neutralization is a process which can always occur, but sometimes doesn't simply because a speaker finds certain aspects of a concept too important to prune away through the process of neutralization. To a certain extent, it is a conscious or subconscious process wherein people need to retain or choose to retain aspects of a concept. In discussing the nature of neutralization we also must discuss different aspects of our linguistic systems.
We can generally posit two different levels of conceptualization. There is the level of the conceptual store. This conceptual store simply houses specific underlying meanings. It does not house things like usage. There is also the level of the lexicon. These two levels are distinct in that the conceptual store holds neutral meanings about specific concepts. While the lexicon takes these neutral meanings and is constructed out all of a series of connections which link these neutral meanings to other more specific elements of language based on usage patterns. While Levelt (1989) makes a strong distinction between the mental lexicon and conceptual knowledge (this means that the lexicon houses only linguistic knowledge and does not have direct access to things like schemas or other aspects of long-term memory), other researchers in the area of the lexicon specifically are not so sure. To go back to some familiar examples, if we look at the English word house and the German translation equivalent Haus, we would probably be correct in assuming that these come from a common underlying conceptual store. Certainly if English is learned first the neutralization process will ensure that the German word learned later has the same basic conceptual base. In reality they're not that different. So conceptually they come from the same place. Lexically, however, they are somewhat different entities. English house has different associations with other concepts than German Haus. For one, at least for Americans, the size is different. The materials from which the house is made will be different. Information about collocations and the structures each of the words is able to be used will also vary.
Go home - Geh nach Hause.
I`m home - Ich bin zu Hause.
How they each make compounds will also vary.
Hausmeister - master of the house??
So what we find is that even though these two words come from the same conceptual store their actual usage in the reality of the linguistic code in which they are used will be different. They do have a different things associated with them so that their surface level meaning will never be exactly the same even though the conceptual store for which they spring might have been neutralized to a point where they are the same. Things change as they move from one level to the other. This explains why bilinguals and multilinguals are so adept and apt to codemix when the opportunity arises.
5. If there is a common underlying conceptual base for bilinguals how does this work in the day to day use of language and cognition?
If there is a common underlying conceptual base for bilinguals then this is something that a bilingual will use to their great advantage when engaged in language use situations. It is also something which enables them to think in a slightly different way than monolinguals as regards flexibility of thought and problem-solving. It is this common underlying conceptual base which allows them to process information in a slightly different manner and particularly in a more conscious manner than monolinguals. Bilinguals need to be able not only to notice the different underlying aspects of a particular concept but they need to be able to know which underlying aspects can be pruned away in which ones must stay. Once more, if a concept has been neutralized to the point where it enters the the common conceptual store it can still be used in a language specific manner based on lexical patterning which bilinguals are (need to be) aware of. This is where code mixing comes in. When a bilingual is speaking to a monolingual they are going to call on the neutralized versions of the concepts so that the monolingual will understand what they're talking about more clearly. When a bilingual, however, is speaking to another bilingual (who happens to be bilingual in the same languages) they will not rely on the neutralized versions but will actually switch back and forth mean different codes picking the best rendition of the concept. In doing so they are able to convey more specific elements of meaning in their encounter with the other bilingual. This is the power that multiple codes gives to them.
References
Hamers, J and M. Blanc. (2000). Bilingualism and bilinguality (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levelt, W.P. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.