J Psycholinguist Res DOI 10.1007/s10936-014-9288-4
Two Measures of Bilingualism in the Memories of Immigrants and Indigenous Minorities: Crossover Memories and Codeswitching Carmit Altman
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Two indices of bilingualism, crossover memories and codeswitching (CS), were explored in five groups of immigrant (English–Hebrew, Georgian–Hebrew Russian–Hebrew) and indigenous bilinguals (Arabic–Hebrew, Hebrew–English). Participants recalled memories in response to cue words and then were asked to report the language of retrieval and provide a more elaborate narrative. More memories were ‘same language’ memories, recalled in the language of the experimental session/cue word, but as many as 48 % of the memories were crossovers, i.e. memories reported in a language other than the language of the session/cue word. In an effort to examine the ecological validity of the self-reported language of the memories, the frequency of CS in the elaborated narratives was investigated. For the entire sample, more CS was found for self-reported crossover memories in L2 sessions. In a further analysis of CS in crossover memories, collapsed across L1 and L2 sessions, significant differences emerged between immigrants and indigenous bilinguals. Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant bilinguals are discussed in terms of the role of activation in crossover memories. Keywords Codeswitching · Crossover memories · Bilingualism · Immigrants · Indigenous minorities
Introduction The present paper combines two approaches, one from the psychology of autobiographical narratives, the other from the sociopragmatics and psycholinguistics of bilingualism.
I thank the 55 participants and Mira Goral, Loraine K. Obler, Gloria Olness, Robert W. Schrauf, and Joel Walters. This paper was supported in part by a grant from the Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute of Gerontology and Human Development and Eshel-The Association for the Planning and Development of Services for the Aged in Israel. C. Altman (B) School of Education, Bar Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Psycholinguist Res
From the former tradition, the focus is on crossover memories, those self-reported memories retrieved in a language other than the language of the experimental session or cue word (Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000; Altman et al. 2012). From psycholinguistics, codeswitching (CS) is defined here as language behavior where a speaker uses two languages in a single utterance for a variety of purposes, including fluency, emphasis, focus, contrast (e.g. Clyne 2003; Myers-Scotton 2005; Walters 2005; Zentella 1997). More specifically, we examine the frequency of CS in narratives as entry point to bilingual autobiographical memory, typically investigated by self-reported data. The paper is motivated by three questions: (1) To what extent do bilinguals report more memories in the same language as cue words (same language memories) and to what extent do they ‘cross over’ and report memories in their other language (crossover memories)? (2) Do crossover memories lead to more instances of CS than same language memories when asked to produce elaborated narratives? (3) To what extent do different immigrant groups and indigenous minorities differ in reporting crossover memories and use of CS? Crossover Memories The most widely used methodology to investigate long term, episodic memory in bilinguals is a cue word technique based on Galton’s (1879) self study procedure for eliciting autobiographical memories (Altman et al. 2012; Bugelski 1977; Marian and Neisser 2000; Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004). Bugelski (1977), for example, asked 22 Spanish-English bilingual adults (mean age 55) to report their first thoughts in response to 20 cue words. The procedure was initially conducted in L1 (Spanish) and a month later in L2 (English). Results showed that memories recalled in response to English cue words were associated with later time periods than memories recalled in Spanish. In another study examining this issue, Otoya (1987) studied 40 Spanish–English bilingual students (ages 18–26), half of whom were born in the US or immigrated before the age of seven and half of the participants were bicultural (immigrated between the ages of 7– 18). Participants were asked to recall three memories up to the age of eight and another two memories from the age of 14. Following recall of the five memories, they were asked to retrieve memories for 10 cue words in L1 and in L2 (six of which were translation equivalents). Results demonstrated that bicultural participants recalled later memories than the others and Otoya (1987) concluded that cognitive consequences of immigration may explain the differences. Using a similar methodology, Marian and Neisser (1997) presented 16 Russian-English translation equivalents of cue words to 20 Russian-English bilinguals (mean age 21.8). Participants were asked to recall memories related to the cue words and provide the date of the memories. Findings showed that memories cued in Russian were dated earlier than memories cued in English. This study also demonstrated that the language at the time of an event matched the language of retrieval. In a further study, Marian and Neisser (2000) presented 24 Russian-English students (mean age 20.2) with 16 cue words, half in Russian and half in English, which were translation equivalents. Participants were asked to recall autobiographical memories for the cues and then asked to provide the date of the memories. Participants were asked not to codeswitch and to reply only in the language suitable for that part of the experiment, since the goal was to arrive at language specific recall. Results showed that the cues in a given language tended to trigger the recall of events that had taken place in that language. It was reported that in both experiments there were crossover memories, in the first experiment 36 % in L1 (Russian) sessions and 16 % in L2 (English) sessions Likewise, Matsumoto and Stanny (2006) found that Japanese–English bilinguals found more same-
123
J Psycholinguist Res
language memories, recalling more L1 (Japanese) memories when presented an L1 cue and more L2 (English) encoded memories when triggered with an L2 cue. Percent of crossover memories—over 35 % for both English and Japanese cues—was estimated from the overall means reported in the study. Schrauf and Rubin (1998) investigated autobiographical memories of Spanish–English adult bilinguals (ages 61–69) who immigrated to the US at (ages 20–35). The authors’ main goal was to examine the influence of a major cultural and linguistic transition, such as immigration, on the retrieval of memory. Using the cueing procedure, they predicted that the recall of memories would be affected by the language of the cue word, as in Marian and Neisser (1997). In other words, cue words in the mother tongue would trigger earlier memories, and cue words in the second language would be associated with memories from the period after immigration. Schrauf and Rubin (1998) results did not show cue word effects with mature adults, in contrast to Marian and Neisser (2000) findings with university students. Furthermore, Schrauf and Rubin (1998, 2000, 2004) were interested in memories which were cued in one language but recalled in the other language the bilingual uses, i.e. what are termed crossover memories. Their results (20% crossovers in their 1998 study and 25% in their 2000 study) showed that more Spanish crossover memories were dated prior to immigration, and more English crossover memories were recalled after immigration. Schrauf and Rubin (2004) also showed that that the majority of L1 (Spanish) memories were related to events before immigration where only Spanish was spoken, while L2 (English) memories were associated with events after immigration. Larsen et al. (2002) also used the cueing methodology when examining bilingual memory among Polish immigrants in Denmark. Their study recruited two groups of bilingual adults (over the age of 50) who were either 24 or 34 years of age at the time of immigration. The two age groups recalled more personal memories in L1 (Polish) prior to their immigration period and more memories in L2 (Danish) following their immigration period. The meaningful number of crossover memories found in the literature (25 % in Schrauf and Rubin (1998); 16–67 % in Marian and Neisser 2000; 40 % in Altman et al. (2012)) is claimed to be the entry point most indicative that memory is language-dependent. In an effort to provide behavioral support for reported recall in autobiographical narrative memory, bilingual CS is introduced here as a measure of the relationship between bilingualism and memory. Codeswitching Codeswitching (CS) research has followed several relatively independent tracks. Poplack’s (1980) bound and equivalence morpheme constraints, mathematical models of bilingual discourse (Sankoff 2002), and generative approaches to CS (e.g. MacSwan 1999, 2005; Myers-Scotton 2005) all emphasize possible representations of syntactic constituents related to the two grammars. Psycholinguistic research has looked at the temporal ‘cost’ of CS (Kroll and Groot 1997; Studnitz and Green 2002), language selection and cross-language activation (Colome 2001; Schwartz and Kroll 2006; Kroll et al. 2008), primarily for lexical processing. Sentence level research has been more limited (e.g. Heredia and Altarriba 2002). Discourse approaches have addressed structural as well as processing issues (Auer 1998; Matras 2000). Functional approaches to CS have focused on social motivations which underlie the phenomenon. Among the most noticeable functions are switching to indicate shifts in topic, setting and listener (e.g. Zentella 1997; Gardner-Chloros et al. 2000). In a model informed by the literature cited here and by a wider interest in motivations for code mixing (Heredia and Altarriba 2001), Walters (2005) proposed a bilingual process-
123
J Psycholinguist Res
ing model of sociopragmatic and psycholinguistic information, attempting to merge structural and functional approaches to CS. The model distinguishes between sociopragmatic and structural psycholinguistic CS and assumes that sociopragmatic CS addresses how bilinguals interact with the real world while psycholinguistic CS deals with individual motivations for switching from one language to another. In a few of the studies of autobiographical recall which also reported data on CS, Marian and Kaushanskaya (2004) asked Russian-English bilingual college students to describe personal events. They found main effects for the language of retrieval and the language of encoding (‘ambience language’) and an interaction between retrieval language and ambience language, i.e. when the ambience language did not match the retrieval language, with more CS to English when retrieving in Russian than when retrieving in English. Moreover, the authors did not find a relationship between frequency of CS and language proficiency. In a later study, Marian and Kaushanskaya (2007) asked Russian-English bilinguals to generate 16 memories as described above. They found that when speaking L1, there were more borrowings from L2 than in the opposite direction. In addition, they found more transfers (interference) when speaking L2 than when speaking in L1. Studies involving conversational speech data show that CS frequency ranges from 5–25 % and involves mainly nouns and noun phrases (Iluz-Cohen and Walters 2012; Paradis and Nicoladis 2007; Stephens 1986; Zentella 1997). In summary, crossover memories, those memories reported to be retrieved in a language different from the experimental session/cue word are unique to bilinguals; they represent the individual’s reported language use or metalinguistic judgment. CS, also unique to bilinguals is language behavior which via elaborated narratives may shed further light on bilingual processes of autobiographical narrative memory. Predictions In accordance with previous research on crossover memories (Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000), it is predicted that overall there will be more same language memories than crossover memories in L1. It is also hypothesized that there will be more crossover memories for L2 sessions than for L1 sessions. The assumption underlying this prediction is related to language activation and memory retrieval. In L1 sessions, a bilingual speaker’s first language is activated by the instructions, by the interaction with the experimenter and by the cue words, limiting access to L2. In addition, language dominance/proficiency, age, and relative use of the two languages may also influence the language of retrieval (Heredia and Brown 2006). Conversely, L2 sessions involve increased activation in comparison to L1 sessions, and are thus predicted to generate more crossover memories. In terms of CS, two hypotheses are proposed: (a) more CS for L2 than L1 sessions and (b) more CS for crossover memories (those reported to be in a language other than the language of the session) than for same language memories. In L2 sessions, processing is expected to be more effortful and lead to more CS in order to maintain fluency and/or compensate for difficulties in lexical access. In contrast, higher proficiency and stronger preference for L1 will contribute to greater recall in the native language. Less CS is predicted in L1 sessions, where the lexicon is more accessible. With regard to CS and crossover memories, it is assumed that crossover memories involve greater activation of both languages and will thus lead to higher levels of CS, especially in L2 sessions. Frequency of CS is predicted to be higher for crossover memories. This prediction is based on the assumption that crossover memories involve a linguistic transition between the language of the event (session/cue word) and the self-reported language of recall. This mental transition is expected to be paralleled by a
123
J Psycholinguist Res
behavioral switch expressed as CS in the narratives describing the event. In other words, a behavioral switch in the form of CS is expected to accompany a switch reported as a crossover memory.
Methods The hypotheses outlined above require combining two methods: the memory cueing paradigm from the psychology of autobiographical narrative memory and analysis of CS from the sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Memory cueing was employed to investigate self-reported language-of-retrieval to get at crossover and same language memories, and narratives were elicited to examine the frequency of CS in L1 and L2 and for crossover versus same language memories. Participants Fifty-five mature bilingual adults (ages 54–85) took part in the study, divided into immigrant and non-immigrant groups and then sub-divided into five language groups as seen in Table 1. All immigrant participants (N = 33) arrived in Israel from the US or UK, the former Soviet Union or Soviet Georgia and immigrated during adulthood (after age 21). The nonimmigrant group (N = 22) included two sub-groups who were born in Israel and lived there most of their lives. There were seven Hebrew-English speakers who had exposure to English (L2) from short visits or sabbatical stays in the US or UK, and 15 Arabic–Hebrew speakers who grew up in Arabic speaking towns and villages in Israel. All participants agreed to participate voluntarily and provided written informed consent. Participants were all exposed exclusively or predominately to their respective L1 from infancy through early adulthood. Hebrew was a second language learned after childhood for all participants except native Hebrew speakers. The criterion for participation was ability to sustain a conversation in each one of the languages for at least an hour. Four potential participants who did not meet this criterion were excluded. As a further measure of bilingualism, the audio transcripts in the second language were rated by two Hebrew native speakers and all participants were rated seven on a 10-point rating scale for vocabulary and fluency as seen in Table 1.
Table 1 Demographic and L2 proficiency data about the bilingual participants Group
English–Hebrew immigrants
N
Age
L2 vocabulary
L2 grammar
L2 fluency
M (range)
Age of immigration M (range)
12
71.5 (64–79)
31.58 (21–46)
7.87
7.70
7.75
Georgian–Hebrew immigrants
8
65.75 (61–69)
32.75 (29–37)
7.31
6.93
7.43
Russian–Hebrew immigrants
13
73.15 (64–85)
44.06 (34–57)
7.34
7.23
7.38
Hebrew–English indigenous bilinguals Arabic–Hebrew indigenous bilinguals Immigrants
7
69.57 (60–82)
NA
8.64
8.28
8.78
15
61.33 (54–71)
NA
9.23
8.85
8.98
33
70.13
36.13
7.51
7.29
7.52
Indigenous bilinguals
22
65.45
NA
8.94
8.57
8.88
Totals
55
68.26
NA
8.08
7.80
8.06
123
J Psycholinguist Res
Procedure and Materials Two sessions were conducted, one in each language. Stimulus words came from Rubin (1980) and the cue word technique from Schrauf and Rubin (1998). The first session was conducted in L2 and the second session was conducted in L1. Different cues were used for each session. The same bilingual experimenter conducted each session with 1–2 weeks intervening. The participants were made aware that the interviewer was bilingual prior to data collection. Following the second session, each participant completed a language background questionnaire. Sessions lasted on average 90 min. They were recorded on a Sony ICD-SX25 V-O-R and transferred electronically for transcription. The first session involved looking successively at each of 16 cue words and briefly reporting a concrete and specific memory for each word (Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000). To make sure instructions were understood, each participant was given an example of a concrete memory. After the participant’s response, s/he was asked to indicate the language of the memory. When an English–Hebrew participant took part in the study, for example, s/he was asked: “This memory came to me in:” No language English Hebrew Both Languages This metalinguistic judgment enabled classification of memories as same language or crossovers depending on whether the language of the experimental session/cue word was the same or different from the reported language. All memories reported as ‘English’ were considered ‘same language memories,’ and all memories recalled in ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Both languages’ were considered crossover memories. The participant reported the language of recall following retrieval of the memory, sequentially for each of the 16 stimulus cues. There was a total of 1,499 specific, concrete memories, 768 in L1 sessions and 731 in L2 sessions. After the cue word procedure, the interviewer chose one memory from each of the participant’s decades across the lifespan and asked the participant to provide a longer narrative involving more details about the event. A similar number of crossover and same language memories were elicited from the participant when possible. Participants were asked to describe “anything else remembered about the specific memory”. Data Analyses The following comparisons were examined: (1) Frequency of ‘same language’ and ‘crossover’ memories in L1 and L2 sessions. The language in which the memory was recalled was coded as either ‘same language’ (retrieved in the same language as the cue/session) or ‘crossover’ (retrieved in the other language or in both languages). (2) Codeswitches were counted as a percent of total words uttered in that language following Iluz-Cohen and Walters (2012) and Paradis and Nicoladis (2007). Instances of CS were counted when a participant switched from the language of the session to the other language. CS instances were then divided by the total number of words the participant produced in describing his/her memories. For example, in the sentence ‘I went to the makolet [grocery store] yesterday, there is 16.66 % CS (one codeswitched instance out of six words). Frequencies of CS for same language and crossover memories in L1 and L2 sessions were calculated.
123
J Psycholinguist Res
Results The findings are reported as follows: First, frequencies of memory recall are presented, comparing crossover and same language memories in L1 and L2 sessions. Then, the frequency of CS is reported for the two categories of memories in L1 and L2 sessions and in crossover and same language memories. The results are reported for (a) the overall sample (N = 55) (b) immigrants (N = 33) versus indigenous bilinguals (N = 22) and (c) for each of the five language groups: English–Hebrew (N = 12), Georgian–Hebrew (N = 8), Russian– Hebrew (N = 13), Hebrew–English (N = 7) and Arabic–Hebrew (N = 15). Data from the crossovers of the seven Hebrew–English participants were reported briefly in Altman et al. (2012) and data for the English–Hebrew bilinguals were reported in Altman et al. (2012). Crossover Memories Versus Same Language Memories in L1 and L2 For the entire sample of bilinguals, 52 % of the memories were reported to be recalled in the same language as the session/cue word and 48 % were reported to be crossovers memories, i.e. in a language other than the language of the session. A non-parametric Friedman ANOVA conducted on the frequency of (1) same language memories in L1 sessions, (2) same language memories in L2 sessions, (3) crossover memories in L1 sessions, and (4) crossovers in L2 sessions yielded significant differences between conditions (χ 2 = 75.9, p < .001). Mean frequencies and standard deviations of memories are presented in Table 2. The data show that there were almost three times as many same language memories in L1 sessions as there were in L2 sessions and almost three times as many crossover memories in L2 sessions as there were in L1 sessions. A Wilcoxon Matched Pairs tests confirmed both the hypothesis that there would be more same language memories (M = 10.56) than crossover memories (M = 3.40) in L1 sessions, Z = −4.35 ( p < .001) and the hypothesis that there would be more crossover memories (M = 9.56) than same language memories (M = 3.73) in L2, Z = −4.29 ( p < .001). Immigration Effects Table 3 presents a breakdown of crossover and same language memories in L1 and L2 sessions for immigrant and non-immigrant participants. The same basic pattern emerged for Table 2 Mean frequency of same language (SL) and crossover (CO) memories in L1 and L2 sessions for 55 bilinguals N
SLL1 M (SD)
SLL2 M (SD)
COL1 M (SD)
COL2 M (SD)
χ2
55
10.56 (4.50)
3.73 (3.98)
3.40 (4.61)
9.56 (5.01)
75.9***
*** p < .001 Table 3 Mean frequencies and standard deviations for same language (SL) and crossover (CO) memories in L1 and L2 sessions for immigrants and indigenous bilinguals Group
N
Immigrants
33
Indigenous bilinguals
22
SLL1 M (SD) 9.06 (4.70) 12.82 (3.1)
SLL2 M (SD) 3 (3.08) 4.82 (4.93)
COL1 M (SD) 4.76 (5.41) 1.36 (1.7)
COL2 M (SD)
χ2
10 (5.27)
34.65***
8.91 (4.65)
51.25***
*** p < .001
123
J Psycholinguist Res
both groups, viz. more same language memories in L1 sessions and more crossover memories in L2 sessions. A non-parametric Friedman ANOVA conducted on the frequency of (1) same language memories in L1 sessions, (2) same language memories in L2 sessions, (3) crossover memories in L1 sessions, and (4) crossovers in L2 yielded significant differences between the four conditions for immigrants (χ 2 = 34.65, p < .001) and indigenous bilinguals (χ 2 = 51.25, p < .001). Wilcoxon Matched Pairs were conducted for each of the four conditions. These tests showed significant differences between immigrant and non-immigrant bilinguals for both same language memories in L1 (Z = −3.08, p < .01) and crossovers in L1 (Z = −2.45, p < .05). When comparing immigrants and indigenous bilinguals in L2, the results were not significant for either same language memories (Z = −1.72, p > .05) or crossovers (Z = −1.74, p > .05). The findings indicate that immigration makes a difference in bilinguals’ retrieval of same language and crossover memories in L1 but not in L2. Immigrants reported more memories in L2 and fewer memories in L1. In L2 sessions, however, when instructions and cues are presented in L2, both immigrants and indigenous bilinguals recall most of their memories in L1.
Differences for Language Groups Somewhat different patterns emerged following a breakdown of the experimental conditions by native language. Four of the five language groups showed the same pattern: i.e. more same language memories in L1 sessions and more crossover memories in L2 sessions. On the other hand, Georgian-Hebrew bilinguals reported more crossover memories in both L1 and L2 sessions. Statistical analyses were not appropriate due to the small number of participants in each group. Of greatest interest for the study of bilingual memory are the frequencies of crossover memories in the L2 conditions, taken here as an indicator of how language and memory are interrelated (e.g. Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000). Two issues are germane to this finding, one related to proficiency and bilingual experience and the other to the nature of bilingualism. Following Heredia and Brown (2006), higher proficiency in L1 than L2 was predicted to yield more same language memories overall and more crossover memories in L2 sessions. These predictions were obtained here for four out of the five immigrant groups. But, mere frequency of memories, even when compared across the four conditions in this study, is only an indirect way to get at the nature of bilingualism. In the following section, a more behavioral measure of bilingualism, i.e. CS, is used to gain insight into bilingual memory. Codeswitching for Crossover and Same Language Memories in L1 and L2 sessions A total of 920 narratives were elicited and transcribed, 478 in L1 and 442 in L2. There were 2,895 instances of CS produced by the 55 bilingual participants. CS across individuals ranged from 0–24 instances per memory. The frequencies of CS are summarized in Table 4. A univariate analysis of variance conducted for all 55 participants yielded significant differences among the four CS conditions: same language memories in L1, same language memories in L2, crossover memories in L1, crossover memories in L2,.F(3, 52) = 3.34, p < .05. A posthoc Bonferroni revealed that the significant differences stemmed from the higher frequency of CS in crossover memories in L2 (13 per 1,000 words) in comparison to the frequency in same language memories in L2 (7 per 1,000 words).
123
J Psycholinguist Res Table 4 Frequency of CS instances in SLL1, SLL2, COL1 and COL2 Group
SLL1 M (SD)
SLL2 M (SD)
COL1 M (SD)
COL2 M (SD)
F
Immigrants English–Hebrew
9 (7)
9 (11)
20 (25)
17 (14)
NS
Georgian–Hebrew
22 (22)
11 (20)
42 (25)
18 (24)
2.06*
Russian–Hebrew
4 (5)
1 (5)
4 (7)
7 (9)
NS
Hebrew–English
19 (33)
8 (8)
6 (9)
13 (7)
NS
Indigenous Arabic–Hebrew indigenous bilinguals
12 (17)
9 (14)
13 (21)
12 (15)
NS
Total immigrants
10 (14)
7 (13)
20 (24)
14 (10)
2.86*
Total indigenous
8 (15)
8 (12)
4 (9)
12 (12)
NS
Total participants
9 (14)
7 (12)
13 (21)
13 (14)
3.34*
* p < .05. Total number of words was multiplied by 1,000 for comparability due to different text lengths. SLL1 same language memories in L1 (CS into L2), SLL2 same language memories in L2 (CS into L1), COL1 crossover memories in L1 (CS into L2), COL2 crossover memories in L2 (CS into L1)
Immigration Effects In comparing CS frequency for immigrant versus non-immigrant groups in the crossover versus same language memory conditions and the L1 versus the L2 conditions, an ANOVA showed significant differences once more among the four conditions F (3, 51) = 2.86, p < .05. A posthoc Bonferroni revealed a trend toward significance in the immigrants’ data ( p = 0.079) in crossover versus same language memories in L2 (14 vs. 7 switches per 1,000 words, respectively). No significant main effects or interactions were found for the non-immigrant group. Differences for Language Groups In order to clarify the role of each language group, a oneway ANOVA was conducted for the four CS conditions—same language memories in L1, same language memories in L2, crossover memories in L1, crossover memories in L2—for each group. The Georgian-Hebrew participants’ results were found to be significantly different from three out of the four language groups (Russian–Hebrew, Hebrew–English and Arabic–Hebrew) for the four conditions, F (3, 48) = 2.06, p < .05. A posthoc Bonferroni test showed a significantly higher frequency of CS in crossover memories than same language memories in L2 (18 vs. 11 codeswitches per thousand words, respectively) for the Georgian-Hebrew participants. Finally, it was hypothesized that there would be more CS in crossover memories than in same language memories and more CS instances in L2 than in L1 sessions. A t test conducted on the entire sample confirmed that CS instances were more numerous in crossover memories than in same language memories t (54) = 2.67, p < .05 as seen in Table 5. No significant results were found relating to the difference in CS in L1 and L2. When comparing immigrants and indigenous bilinguals in terms of frequency of CS in crossover and same language memories, significant differences were found for the immigrant group t (31) = 3.27, p < .01 but not for the non-immigrant group alone ( p > .05). No significant results were found relating to the difference in CS in L1 and in L2 in either the immigrant or non-immigrant groups.
123
J Psycholinguist Res Table 5 Frequency of CS instances in SL, CO, L1 and L2 Group
SL M (SD)
CO M (SD)
L1 M (SD)
L2 M (SD)
English–Hebrew immigrants
11 (8)
21 (18)
17 (14)
17 (10)
Georgian–Hebrew immigrants
17 (17)
31 (18)
32 (20)
15 (19)
Russian–Hebrew immigrants
3 (3)
6 (6)
4 (4)
5 (7)
Hebrew–English indigenous bilinguals
5 (5)
10 (3)
3 (4)
11 (8)
Arabic–Hebrew indigenous bilinguals
T (CO-SL)
11 (15)
9 (7)
8 (9)
11 (13)
Total immigrants
9 (11)
17 (17)
16 (17)
12 (13)
3.27*
Total indigenous bilinguals
8 (12)
9 (6)
6 (8)
10 (12)
NS
Total participants
9 (12)
14 (14)
12 (15)
11 (12)
2.67*
* p < .05. Total words were multiplied by 1,000 for comparability due to different text lengths. SL same language memories, CO crossover memories
Trends toward significance were observed in three of the five sub groups but due to the small number of participants in each group, these did not reach significance.
Discussion The present study examined bilingualism and autobiographical narrative by means of selfreported crossover memories and bilingual CS behavior. Crossover memories were found to be more frequent in L2 sessions, and same language memories were more frequent in L1 sessions, as predicted. These results were found for immigrant and indigenous bilinguals alike. In a more detailed examination of the different language groups in the study, four out of the five groups followed this same pattern. This finding replicates much of the work on bilingual autobiographical memory showing a high rate of crossover memories in bilinguals’ narrative recall (e.g., Schrauf and Rubin 1998). As a further entry point into the bilingualism of immigrants and indigenous minorities, the frequency of CS was examined for same language and crossover memories in L1 and L2 sessions. Results showed more CS in crossover memories in L2 than in any other condition. Finally, it was also found that in general there was more CS in crossover memories than in same language memories. This finding was was most salient for the immigrant group. No significant results were found relating to the difference in CS in L1 and in L2 sessions. This indicates that immigration makes a difference in bilinguals’ frequency of CS in crossover versus same language memories, but does not make a difference when comparing the frequency of CS in L1 and L2. Crossover Memories as Insight to Bilingual Memory The initial question corroborated a well-established finding that autobiographical memory is encoded for language (Francis 1999 i.e. ‘language dependent’ memory (Marian and Neisser 2000; Schrauf and Durazo-Arvizu 2006) This finding becomes clearer in light of the fact that memory for recall of the language of a conversation which took place only minutes before pales in comparison to memory for content (Berkowits 1984; Horiba 1996). One possible resolution of this apparent contradiction is that the studies cited here focus on short term, working memory, and studies of autobiographical narratives deal with long term, episodic memory. But this distinction cannot account for how a bilingual fails to recall accu-
123
J Psycholinguist Res
rately the language of a prior conversation immediately after it occurs, but up to 50 years later can and does distinguish between same language and crossover memories. The meaningful number of crossovers (25 % in Schrauf and Rubin 1998; 16–67 % in Marian and Neisser (2000); and 48 % in the present study) seems to indicate that some aspects of language may be recoverable from an original event, or at least from the reconstructed portions of that event. As discussed in Altman et al. (2012), when asked to retrieve the language of the memory, there is an attempt to detect the language of the experience. The language of experience may be accessed via sociolinguistic information about the setting, topic and people involved in the memory. In this way, self-reported recall of the language of a memory may involve a complex integral of information. It is also a unitary, ‘reproductive’ measure. It is the combination of complex, integrated judgments and reconstructed aspects of memory which may account for the crossover memories documented here, especially in the L2 sessions. From a more bilingual perspective, the crossovers in this study are evidence for activation of both languages. Despite the fact that the participant is instructed and cued in one language, s/he reports memories from the other language, evidence that traces of language cues remain in long term memory. In a study of lexical activation to examine “whether the presence of sentence context would modulate cross-language, non-selective activation,” Schwartz and Kroll (2006) concluded that “cross-language alternatives” are active at all stages of processing. In making this argument elsewhere, Kroll et al. (2008) distinguish L1 from L2 processing. L1 is claimed to be more proficient and ‘faster’ and thus less susceptible to L2 influence than the influence of L1 on L2. L2 is argued to involve more cross-language interaction, the state which leads to crossover memories in the present study. The data here suggest that in both L1 and L2 there is activation of the other language, as demonstrated by the prevalence of CS in all language groups even though the participants were not expected or encouraged to codeswitch. Nevertheless, the low frequencies of CS may also point to the possibility that the participants, like most bilinguals, are operating in ‘bilingual mode’ (Grosjean 2001). Codeswitching The higher frequency of CS found in crossover memories in this study lends support to the hypothesis that these two different measures of bilingualism are related. CS is a behavioral measure, which validates participants’ self-reported recall. Beyond this methodological point, the interest here is in why these two measures are related and more specifically, why crossover memories generate more CS. I propose that at the moment a participant retrieves a memory and reports it as a crossover, the ‘other’ language is activated along with the language of the session/cue word. When s/he is later asked to elaborate on this memory in an extended narrative, the ‘other’ language facilitates, perhaps even triggers, CS into the activated language. This interpretation conforms to a wide range of findings at the lexical level of processing, where both languages have been found to be activated (e.g. Francis 1999; Schwartz and Kroll 2006). While CS and crossovers are seen as related in terms of activation, they are nevertheless not totally identical in terms of processing. Crossover memories are conscious, metalinguistic recall judgments, providing insight into retrieval processes of personal events. These judgments, following Small and Nusbaum (2004), involve a more diffuse set of processes than CS, which is natural language use in context. CS draws on phonological, grammatical and pragmatic language processes which are more automatic. Despite this difference, both crossover memories and CS are nurtured by the fact that both languages are activated. This activation has cognitive effects on how people talk about their memories. That is, at the
123
J Psycholinguist Res
level of mental representation in memory, a crossover retains language-specific (L1 plus L2) information that “forces itself” into the narrative reporting of those memories. Immigrants Versus Indigenous Bilinguals Immigration was found to make a difference in the recall of same language and crossover memories in L1 but not in L2. Immigrants reported more memories in L2 and fewer memories in L1 than indigenous bilinguals when instructed and shown cue words in L1. In L2 sessions, however, when cues were shown in L2, for both immigrants and indigenous bilinguals, most memories were reported in L1. The difference between immigrants and indigenous bilinguals in the L1 sessions may be due to the immigrants’ motivation to acculturate, thus making them more likely to recall memories in L2, the language of their new environment. In terms of CS, immigrants produced more CS in crossover memories than in same language memories, while indigenous bilinguals used similar amounts of CS in crossovers and same language memories. For both immigrants and indigenous bilinguals, the difference in CS in L1 and L2 was not significant. This shows that the crossover-same language distinction is more sensitive than the L1–L2 distinction to differences between immigrants and indigenous bilinguals. There were no significant differences in the frequency of CS in L1 and L2 for both groups. F. Language Groups One issue pertinent to the discussion of bilingual autobiographical memory is cultural/linguistic background (Schrauf and Rubin 1998). Some of the subtle differences in the results would not have arisen if the analysis would have stopped with overall data or at the immigrant versus indigenous bilingual level. The importance of relating to the different language groups’ diversity is especially apparent when the data for the Georgian–Hebrew immigrants are considered. This group reported more crossover memories overall in both sessions and showed the largest amount of CS. This may be due to the fact that they know Georgian well, since they immigrated along with their communities from abroad and settled in closely-knit as well. Their sense of Georgian heritage thus remains both in their memory retrieval and in their language maintenance to a greater extent than other immigrants in this study. On the other hand, Hebrew symbolizes the language of the Bible and the state of Israel, the place to which they immigrated, some after years of longing. These bonds to their native language and to the language of the new country are sources of a merged identity, which finds expression in both crossover memories and CS. In sum, this investigation showed that memory is language-dependent and that bilingualism finds expression in large numbers of crossover memories. CS complements the findings for crossover memories, with the greatest amount of CS showing up for these particularly bilingual (crossover) memories. The CS measure was also found to be more sensitive to the crossover-same language comparison than to the differences in performance in L1 and L2, especially for immigrant bilinguals. Finally, the Georgian Israelis cultural-linguistic background stood out as distinct among all immigrant and indigenous bilinguals. References Altman, C., Gil, M., & Walters, J. (2012). Language choice in bilingual aphasia—memory and emotions. In M. Gitterman, M. Goral, & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Aspects of multilingual aphasia (pp. 171–186). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
123
J Psycholinguist Res Altman, C., Schrauf, R., & Walters, J. (2012). Crossovers and codeswitching in the investigation of immigrant autobiographical memory. In L. Isurin & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Memory, language, and bilingualism: Theoretical and applied approaches (pp. 211–235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, N. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London, England: Routledge. Berkowits, R. (1984). Recognition memory for input language in nonfluent bilinguals. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique: Cahiers de Linguistique Theorique et Appliquee, 21, 119–130. Bugelski, B. R. (1977). Imagery and verbal behavior. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1, 9–52. Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Colome, A. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language-specific or languageindependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 721–736. Francis, W. S. (1999). Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 193–222. Galton, F. (1879). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149–162. Gardner-Chloros, P., Charles, R., & Cheshire, J. (2000). Parallel patterns? A comparison of monolingual speech and bilingual codeswitching discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1305–1341. Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1997). Accommodation theory. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader (pp. 232–239). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell. Heredia, R. R., & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 164–168. Heredia, R. R., & Altarriba, J. (2002). Bilingual sentence processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Heredia, R. R., & Brown, J. M. (2006). Bilingual memory. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 213–228). MA: Blackwell Publishers. Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 433–473. Iluz-Cohen, P., & Walters, J. (2012). Telling stories in two Languages: Narratives of bilingual preschool children with typical and impaired language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 58–74. Kroll, J. F., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 169–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M. M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416–430. Larsen, S., Schrauf, R. W., Fromholt, P., & Rubin, D. C. (2002). Inner speech and bilingual autobiographical memory: A Polish-Danish cross-cultural study. Memory, 10, 45–54. MacSwan, J. (1999). A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching. New York: Garland. MacSwan, J. (2005). Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 1–22. Marian, V., & Neisser, U. (1997). Autobiographical memory in bilinguals. Presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, PA. Marian, V., & Neisser, U. (2000). Language -Dependent Recall of Autobiographical Memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 129, 361–368. Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2004). Self-construal and emotion in bicultural bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 190–201. Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Cross-linguistic transfer and borrowing in bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 369–390. Matras, Y. (2000). Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 505–528. Matsumoto, A., & Stanny, C. J. (2006). Language dependent access to autobiographical memory in JapaneseEnglish bilinguals and US monolinguals. Memory, 14, 378–390. Myers-Scotton, C. (2005). Contact Linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Otoya, M. (1987). A study of personal memories of bilinguals: The role of culture and language in memory encoding and recall. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Paradis, J., & Nicoladis, E. (2007). The Influence of dominance and sociolinguistic context on bilingual preschoolers’ language choice. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 277–297.
123
J Psycholinguist Res Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino espanol: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618. Rubin, D. C. (1980). 51 properties of 125 words: A unit analysis of verbal behavior. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 736–755. Sankoff, D. (2002). A mathematical model for the production of bilingual discourse. Presented at the Second University of Vigo International Symposiumon Bilingualism, Vigo, Galicia. Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (1998). Bilingual autobiographical memory in older adult immigrants: A test of cognitive explanations of the reminiscence bump and the linguistic encoding of memories. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 437–457. Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (2000). Internal languages of retrieval: The bilingual encoding of memories for the personal past. Memory and Cognition, 28, 616–623. Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (2001). Effects of voluntary immigration on the distribution of autobiographical memory over the lifespan. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 75–88. Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (2004). The ’language’ and ’feel’ of bilingual memory: Mnemonic traces. Estudios de Sociolinguistica, 5, 21–39. Schrauf, R. W., & Durazo-Arvizu, R. (2006). Bilingual autobiographical memory and emotion: Theory and methods. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and representation (pp. 284–311). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212. Small, S. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2004). On the neurobiological investigation of language understanding in context. Brain and Language, 89(2), 300–311. Stephens, D. A. (1986). Linguistic aspects of code-switching among Spanish/English bilingual children. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Von Studnitz, R. E., & Green, D. W. (2002). The cost of switching language in a semantic categorization task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 241–251. Walters, J. (2005). Bilingualism: The sociopragmatic-psycholinguistic interface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
123
Two Measures of Bilingualism in the Memories of Immigrants and Indigenous Minorities: Crossover Memories and Codeswitching Carmit Altman
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Two indices of bilingualism, crossover memories and codeswitching (CS), were explored in five groups of immigrant (English–Hebrew, Georgian–Hebrew Russian–Hebrew) and indigenous bilinguals (Arabic–Hebrew, Hebrew–English). Participants recalled memories in response to cue words and then were asked to report the language of retrieval and provide a more elaborate narrative. More memories were ‘same language’ memories, recalled in the language of the experimental session/cue word, but as many as 48 % of the memories were crossovers, i.e. memories reported in a language other than the language of the session/cue word. In an effort to examine the ecological validity of the self-reported language of the memories, the frequency of CS in the elaborated narratives was investigated. For the entire sample, more CS was found for self-reported crossover memories in L2 sessions. In a further analysis of CS in crossover memories, collapsed across L1 and L2 sessions, significant differences emerged between immigrants and indigenous bilinguals. Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant bilinguals are discussed in terms of the role of activation in crossover memories. Keywords Codeswitching · Crossover memories · Bilingualism · Immigrants · Indigenous minorities
Introduction The present paper combines two approaches, one from the psychology of autobiographical narratives, the other from the sociopragmatics and psycholinguistics of bilingualism.
I thank the 55 participants and Mira Goral, Loraine K. Obler, Gloria Olness, Robert W. Schrauf, and Joel Walters. This paper was supported in part by a grant from the Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute of Gerontology and Human Development and Eshel-The Association for the Planning and Development of Services for the Aged in Israel. C. Altman (B) School of Education, Bar Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Psycholinguist Res
From the former tradition, the focus is on crossover memories, those self-reported memories retrieved in a language other than the language of the experimental session or cue word (Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000; Altman et al. 2012). From psycholinguistics, codeswitching (CS) is defined here as language behavior where a speaker uses two languages in a single utterance for a variety of purposes, including fluency, emphasis, focus, contrast (e.g. Clyne 2003; Myers-Scotton 2005; Walters 2005; Zentella 1997). More specifically, we examine the frequency of CS in narratives as entry point to bilingual autobiographical memory, typically investigated by self-reported data. The paper is motivated by three questions: (1) To what extent do bilinguals report more memories in the same language as cue words (same language memories) and to what extent do they ‘cross over’ and report memories in their other language (crossover memories)? (2) Do crossover memories lead to more instances of CS than same language memories when asked to produce elaborated narratives? (3) To what extent do different immigrant groups and indigenous minorities differ in reporting crossover memories and use of CS? Crossover Memories The most widely used methodology to investigate long term, episodic memory in bilinguals is a cue word technique based on Galton’s (1879) self study procedure for eliciting autobiographical memories (Altman et al. 2012; Bugelski 1977; Marian and Neisser 2000; Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004). Bugelski (1977), for example, asked 22 Spanish-English bilingual adults (mean age 55) to report their first thoughts in response to 20 cue words. The procedure was initially conducted in L1 (Spanish) and a month later in L2 (English). Results showed that memories recalled in response to English cue words were associated with later time periods than memories recalled in Spanish. In another study examining this issue, Otoya (1987) studied 40 Spanish–English bilingual students (ages 18–26), half of whom were born in the US or immigrated before the age of seven and half of the participants were bicultural (immigrated between the ages of 7– 18). Participants were asked to recall three memories up to the age of eight and another two memories from the age of 14. Following recall of the five memories, they were asked to retrieve memories for 10 cue words in L1 and in L2 (six of which were translation equivalents). Results demonstrated that bicultural participants recalled later memories than the others and Otoya (1987) concluded that cognitive consequences of immigration may explain the differences. Using a similar methodology, Marian and Neisser (1997) presented 16 Russian-English translation equivalents of cue words to 20 Russian-English bilinguals (mean age 21.8). Participants were asked to recall memories related to the cue words and provide the date of the memories. Findings showed that memories cued in Russian were dated earlier than memories cued in English. This study also demonstrated that the language at the time of an event matched the language of retrieval. In a further study, Marian and Neisser (2000) presented 24 Russian-English students (mean age 20.2) with 16 cue words, half in Russian and half in English, which were translation equivalents. Participants were asked to recall autobiographical memories for the cues and then asked to provide the date of the memories. Participants were asked not to codeswitch and to reply only in the language suitable for that part of the experiment, since the goal was to arrive at language specific recall. Results showed that the cues in a given language tended to trigger the recall of events that had taken place in that language. It was reported that in both experiments there were crossover memories, in the first experiment 36 % in L1 (Russian) sessions and 16 % in L2 (English) sessions Likewise, Matsumoto and Stanny (2006) found that Japanese–English bilinguals found more same-
123
J Psycholinguist Res
language memories, recalling more L1 (Japanese) memories when presented an L1 cue and more L2 (English) encoded memories when triggered with an L2 cue. Percent of crossover memories—over 35 % for both English and Japanese cues—was estimated from the overall means reported in the study. Schrauf and Rubin (1998) investigated autobiographical memories of Spanish–English adult bilinguals (ages 61–69) who immigrated to the US at (ages 20–35). The authors’ main goal was to examine the influence of a major cultural and linguistic transition, such as immigration, on the retrieval of memory. Using the cueing procedure, they predicted that the recall of memories would be affected by the language of the cue word, as in Marian and Neisser (1997). In other words, cue words in the mother tongue would trigger earlier memories, and cue words in the second language would be associated with memories from the period after immigration. Schrauf and Rubin (1998) results did not show cue word effects with mature adults, in contrast to Marian and Neisser (2000) findings with university students. Furthermore, Schrauf and Rubin (1998, 2000, 2004) were interested in memories which were cued in one language but recalled in the other language the bilingual uses, i.e. what are termed crossover memories. Their results (20% crossovers in their 1998 study and 25% in their 2000 study) showed that more Spanish crossover memories were dated prior to immigration, and more English crossover memories were recalled after immigration. Schrauf and Rubin (2004) also showed that that the majority of L1 (Spanish) memories were related to events before immigration where only Spanish was spoken, while L2 (English) memories were associated with events after immigration. Larsen et al. (2002) also used the cueing methodology when examining bilingual memory among Polish immigrants in Denmark. Their study recruited two groups of bilingual adults (over the age of 50) who were either 24 or 34 years of age at the time of immigration. The two age groups recalled more personal memories in L1 (Polish) prior to their immigration period and more memories in L2 (Danish) following their immigration period. The meaningful number of crossover memories found in the literature (25 % in Schrauf and Rubin (1998); 16–67 % in Marian and Neisser 2000; 40 % in Altman et al. (2012)) is claimed to be the entry point most indicative that memory is language-dependent. In an effort to provide behavioral support for reported recall in autobiographical narrative memory, bilingual CS is introduced here as a measure of the relationship between bilingualism and memory. Codeswitching Codeswitching (CS) research has followed several relatively independent tracks. Poplack’s (1980) bound and equivalence morpheme constraints, mathematical models of bilingual discourse (Sankoff 2002), and generative approaches to CS (e.g. MacSwan 1999, 2005; Myers-Scotton 2005) all emphasize possible representations of syntactic constituents related to the two grammars. Psycholinguistic research has looked at the temporal ‘cost’ of CS (Kroll and Groot 1997; Studnitz and Green 2002), language selection and cross-language activation (Colome 2001; Schwartz and Kroll 2006; Kroll et al. 2008), primarily for lexical processing. Sentence level research has been more limited (e.g. Heredia and Altarriba 2002). Discourse approaches have addressed structural as well as processing issues (Auer 1998; Matras 2000). Functional approaches to CS have focused on social motivations which underlie the phenomenon. Among the most noticeable functions are switching to indicate shifts in topic, setting and listener (e.g. Zentella 1997; Gardner-Chloros et al. 2000). In a model informed by the literature cited here and by a wider interest in motivations for code mixing (Heredia and Altarriba 2001), Walters (2005) proposed a bilingual process-
123
J Psycholinguist Res
ing model of sociopragmatic and psycholinguistic information, attempting to merge structural and functional approaches to CS. The model distinguishes between sociopragmatic and structural psycholinguistic CS and assumes that sociopragmatic CS addresses how bilinguals interact with the real world while psycholinguistic CS deals with individual motivations for switching from one language to another. In a few of the studies of autobiographical recall which also reported data on CS, Marian and Kaushanskaya (2004) asked Russian-English bilingual college students to describe personal events. They found main effects for the language of retrieval and the language of encoding (‘ambience language’) and an interaction between retrieval language and ambience language, i.e. when the ambience language did not match the retrieval language, with more CS to English when retrieving in Russian than when retrieving in English. Moreover, the authors did not find a relationship between frequency of CS and language proficiency. In a later study, Marian and Kaushanskaya (2007) asked Russian-English bilinguals to generate 16 memories as described above. They found that when speaking L1, there were more borrowings from L2 than in the opposite direction. In addition, they found more transfers (interference) when speaking L2 than when speaking in L1. Studies involving conversational speech data show that CS frequency ranges from 5–25 % and involves mainly nouns and noun phrases (Iluz-Cohen and Walters 2012; Paradis and Nicoladis 2007; Stephens 1986; Zentella 1997). In summary, crossover memories, those memories reported to be retrieved in a language different from the experimental session/cue word are unique to bilinguals; they represent the individual’s reported language use or metalinguistic judgment. CS, also unique to bilinguals is language behavior which via elaborated narratives may shed further light on bilingual processes of autobiographical narrative memory. Predictions In accordance with previous research on crossover memories (Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000), it is predicted that overall there will be more same language memories than crossover memories in L1. It is also hypothesized that there will be more crossover memories for L2 sessions than for L1 sessions. The assumption underlying this prediction is related to language activation and memory retrieval. In L1 sessions, a bilingual speaker’s first language is activated by the instructions, by the interaction with the experimenter and by the cue words, limiting access to L2. In addition, language dominance/proficiency, age, and relative use of the two languages may also influence the language of retrieval (Heredia and Brown 2006). Conversely, L2 sessions involve increased activation in comparison to L1 sessions, and are thus predicted to generate more crossover memories. In terms of CS, two hypotheses are proposed: (a) more CS for L2 than L1 sessions and (b) more CS for crossover memories (those reported to be in a language other than the language of the session) than for same language memories. In L2 sessions, processing is expected to be more effortful and lead to more CS in order to maintain fluency and/or compensate for difficulties in lexical access. In contrast, higher proficiency and stronger preference for L1 will contribute to greater recall in the native language. Less CS is predicted in L1 sessions, where the lexicon is more accessible. With regard to CS and crossover memories, it is assumed that crossover memories involve greater activation of both languages and will thus lead to higher levels of CS, especially in L2 sessions. Frequency of CS is predicted to be higher for crossover memories. This prediction is based on the assumption that crossover memories involve a linguistic transition between the language of the event (session/cue word) and the self-reported language of recall. This mental transition is expected to be paralleled by a
123
J Psycholinguist Res
behavioral switch expressed as CS in the narratives describing the event. In other words, a behavioral switch in the form of CS is expected to accompany a switch reported as a crossover memory.
Methods The hypotheses outlined above require combining two methods: the memory cueing paradigm from the psychology of autobiographical narrative memory and analysis of CS from the sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Memory cueing was employed to investigate self-reported language-of-retrieval to get at crossover and same language memories, and narratives were elicited to examine the frequency of CS in L1 and L2 and for crossover versus same language memories. Participants Fifty-five mature bilingual adults (ages 54–85) took part in the study, divided into immigrant and non-immigrant groups and then sub-divided into five language groups as seen in Table 1. All immigrant participants (N = 33) arrived in Israel from the US or UK, the former Soviet Union or Soviet Georgia and immigrated during adulthood (after age 21). The nonimmigrant group (N = 22) included two sub-groups who were born in Israel and lived there most of their lives. There were seven Hebrew-English speakers who had exposure to English (L2) from short visits or sabbatical stays in the US or UK, and 15 Arabic–Hebrew speakers who grew up in Arabic speaking towns and villages in Israel. All participants agreed to participate voluntarily and provided written informed consent. Participants were all exposed exclusively or predominately to their respective L1 from infancy through early adulthood. Hebrew was a second language learned after childhood for all participants except native Hebrew speakers. The criterion for participation was ability to sustain a conversation in each one of the languages for at least an hour. Four potential participants who did not meet this criterion were excluded. As a further measure of bilingualism, the audio transcripts in the second language were rated by two Hebrew native speakers and all participants were rated seven on a 10-point rating scale for vocabulary and fluency as seen in Table 1.
Table 1 Demographic and L2 proficiency data about the bilingual participants Group
English–Hebrew immigrants
N
Age
L2 vocabulary
L2 grammar
L2 fluency
M (range)
Age of immigration M (range)
12
71.5 (64–79)
31.58 (21–46)
7.87
7.70
7.75
Georgian–Hebrew immigrants
8
65.75 (61–69)
32.75 (29–37)
7.31
6.93
7.43
Russian–Hebrew immigrants
13
73.15 (64–85)
44.06 (34–57)
7.34
7.23
7.38
Hebrew–English indigenous bilinguals Arabic–Hebrew indigenous bilinguals Immigrants
7
69.57 (60–82)
NA
8.64
8.28
8.78
15
61.33 (54–71)
NA
9.23
8.85
8.98
33
70.13
36.13
7.51
7.29
7.52
Indigenous bilinguals
22
65.45
NA
8.94
8.57
8.88
Totals
55
68.26
NA
8.08
7.80
8.06
123
J Psycholinguist Res
Procedure and Materials Two sessions were conducted, one in each language. Stimulus words came from Rubin (1980) and the cue word technique from Schrauf and Rubin (1998). The first session was conducted in L2 and the second session was conducted in L1. Different cues were used for each session. The same bilingual experimenter conducted each session with 1–2 weeks intervening. The participants were made aware that the interviewer was bilingual prior to data collection. Following the second session, each participant completed a language background questionnaire. Sessions lasted on average 90 min. They were recorded on a Sony ICD-SX25 V-O-R and transferred electronically for transcription. The first session involved looking successively at each of 16 cue words and briefly reporting a concrete and specific memory for each word (Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000). To make sure instructions were understood, each participant was given an example of a concrete memory. After the participant’s response, s/he was asked to indicate the language of the memory. When an English–Hebrew participant took part in the study, for example, s/he was asked: “This memory came to me in:” No language English Hebrew Both Languages This metalinguistic judgment enabled classification of memories as same language or crossovers depending on whether the language of the experimental session/cue word was the same or different from the reported language. All memories reported as ‘English’ were considered ‘same language memories,’ and all memories recalled in ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Both languages’ were considered crossover memories. The participant reported the language of recall following retrieval of the memory, sequentially for each of the 16 stimulus cues. There was a total of 1,499 specific, concrete memories, 768 in L1 sessions and 731 in L2 sessions. After the cue word procedure, the interviewer chose one memory from each of the participant’s decades across the lifespan and asked the participant to provide a longer narrative involving more details about the event. A similar number of crossover and same language memories were elicited from the participant when possible. Participants were asked to describe “anything else remembered about the specific memory”. Data Analyses The following comparisons were examined: (1) Frequency of ‘same language’ and ‘crossover’ memories in L1 and L2 sessions. The language in which the memory was recalled was coded as either ‘same language’ (retrieved in the same language as the cue/session) or ‘crossover’ (retrieved in the other language or in both languages). (2) Codeswitches were counted as a percent of total words uttered in that language following Iluz-Cohen and Walters (2012) and Paradis and Nicoladis (2007). Instances of CS were counted when a participant switched from the language of the session to the other language. CS instances were then divided by the total number of words the participant produced in describing his/her memories. For example, in the sentence ‘I went to the makolet [grocery store] yesterday, there is 16.66 % CS (one codeswitched instance out of six words). Frequencies of CS for same language and crossover memories in L1 and L2 sessions were calculated.
123
J Psycholinguist Res
Results The findings are reported as follows: First, frequencies of memory recall are presented, comparing crossover and same language memories in L1 and L2 sessions. Then, the frequency of CS is reported for the two categories of memories in L1 and L2 sessions and in crossover and same language memories. The results are reported for (a) the overall sample (N = 55) (b) immigrants (N = 33) versus indigenous bilinguals (N = 22) and (c) for each of the five language groups: English–Hebrew (N = 12), Georgian–Hebrew (N = 8), Russian– Hebrew (N = 13), Hebrew–English (N = 7) and Arabic–Hebrew (N = 15). Data from the crossovers of the seven Hebrew–English participants were reported briefly in Altman et al. (2012) and data for the English–Hebrew bilinguals were reported in Altman et al. (2012). Crossover Memories Versus Same Language Memories in L1 and L2 For the entire sample of bilinguals, 52 % of the memories were reported to be recalled in the same language as the session/cue word and 48 % were reported to be crossovers memories, i.e. in a language other than the language of the session. A non-parametric Friedman ANOVA conducted on the frequency of (1) same language memories in L1 sessions, (2) same language memories in L2 sessions, (3) crossover memories in L1 sessions, and (4) crossovers in L2 sessions yielded significant differences between conditions (χ 2 = 75.9, p < .001). Mean frequencies and standard deviations of memories are presented in Table 2. The data show that there were almost three times as many same language memories in L1 sessions as there were in L2 sessions and almost three times as many crossover memories in L2 sessions as there were in L1 sessions. A Wilcoxon Matched Pairs tests confirmed both the hypothesis that there would be more same language memories (M = 10.56) than crossover memories (M = 3.40) in L1 sessions, Z = −4.35 ( p < .001) and the hypothesis that there would be more crossover memories (M = 9.56) than same language memories (M = 3.73) in L2, Z = −4.29 ( p < .001). Immigration Effects Table 3 presents a breakdown of crossover and same language memories in L1 and L2 sessions for immigrant and non-immigrant participants. The same basic pattern emerged for Table 2 Mean frequency of same language (SL) and crossover (CO) memories in L1 and L2 sessions for 55 bilinguals N
SLL1 M (SD)
SLL2 M (SD)
COL1 M (SD)
COL2 M (SD)
χ2
55
10.56 (4.50)
3.73 (3.98)
3.40 (4.61)
9.56 (5.01)
75.9***
*** p < .001 Table 3 Mean frequencies and standard deviations for same language (SL) and crossover (CO) memories in L1 and L2 sessions for immigrants and indigenous bilinguals Group
N
Immigrants
33
Indigenous bilinguals
22
SLL1 M (SD) 9.06 (4.70) 12.82 (3.1)
SLL2 M (SD) 3 (3.08) 4.82 (4.93)
COL1 M (SD) 4.76 (5.41) 1.36 (1.7)
COL2 M (SD)
χ2
10 (5.27)
34.65***
8.91 (4.65)
51.25***
*** p < .001
123
J Psycholinguist Res
both groups, viz. more same language memories in L1 sessions and more crossover memories in L2 sessions. A non-parametric Friedman ANOVA conducted on the frequency of (1) same language memories in L1 sessions, (2) same language memories in L2 sessions, (3) crossover memories in L1 sessions, and (4) crossovers in L2 yielded significant differences between the four conditions for immigrants (χ 2 = 34.65, p < .001) and indigenous bilinguals (χ 2 = 51.25, p < .001). Wilcoxon Matched Pairs were conducted for each of the four conditions. These tests showed significant differences between immigrant and non-immigrant bilinguals for both same language memories in L1 (Z = −3.08, p < .01) and crossovers in L1 (Z = −2.45, p < .05). When comparing immigrants and indigenous bilinguals in L2, the results were not significant for either same language memories (Z = −1.72, p > .05) or crossovers (Z = −1.74, p > .05). The findings indicate that immigration makes a difference in bilinguals’ retrieval of same language and crossover memories in L1 but not in L2. Immigrants reported more memories in L2 and fewer memories in L1. In L2 sessions, however, when instructions and cues are presented in L2, both immigrants and indigenous bilinguals recall most of their memories in L1.
Differences for Language Groups Somewhat different patterns emerged following a breakdown of the experimental conditions by native language. Four of the five language groups showed the same pattern: i.e. more same language memories in L1 sessions and more crossover memories in L2 sessions. On the other hand, Georgian-Hebrew bilinguals reported more crossover memories in both L1 and L2 sessions. Statistical analyses were not appropriate due to the small number of participants in each group. Of greatest interest for the study of bilingual memory are the frequencies of crossover memories in the L2 conditions, taken here as an indicator of how language and memory are interrelated (e.g. Schrauf and Rubin 1998, 2000). Two issues are germane to this finding, one related to proficiency and bilingual experience and the other to the nature of bilingualism. Following Heredia and Brown (2006), higher proficiency in L1 than L2 was predicted to yield more same language memories overall and more crossover memories in L2 sessions. These predictions were obtained here for four out of the five immigrant groups. But, mere frequency of memories, even when compared across the four conditions in this study, is only an indirect way to get at the nature of bilingualism. In the following section, a more behavioral measure of bilingualism, i.e. CS, is used to gain insight into bilingual memory. Codeswitching for Crossover and Same Language Memories in L1 and L2 sessions A total of 920 narratives were elicited and transcribed, 478 in L1 and 442 in L2. There were 2,895 instances of CS produced by the 55 bilingual participants. CS across individuals ranged from 0–24 instances per memory. The frequencies of CS are summarized in Table 4. A univariate analysis of variance conducted for all 55 participants yielded significant differences among the four CS conditions: same language memories in L1, same language memories in L2, crossover memories in L1, crossover memories in L2,.F(3, 52) = 3.34, p < .05. A posthoc Bonferroni revealed that the significant differences stemmed from the higher frequency of CS in crossover memories in L2 (13 per 1,000 words) in comparison to the frequency in same language memories in L2 (7 per 1,000 words).
123
J Psycholinguist Res Table 4 Frequency of CS instances in SLL1, SLL2, COL1 and COL2 Group
SLL1 M (SD)
SLL2 M (SD)
COL1 M (SD)
COL2 M (SD)
F
Immigrants English–Hebrew
9 (7)
9 (11)
20 (25)
17 (14)
NS
Georgian–Hebrew
22 (22)
11 (20)
42 (25)
18 (24)
2.06*
Russian–Hebrew
4 (5)
1 (5)
4 (7)
7 (9)
NS
Hebrew–English
19 (33)
8 (8)
6 (9)
13 (7)
NS
Indigenous Arabic–Hebrew indigenous bilinguals
12 (17)
9 (14)
13 (21)
12 (15)
NS
Total immigrants
10 (14)
7 (13)
20 (24)
14 (10)
2.86*
Total indigenous
8 (15)
8 (12)
4 (9)
12 (12)
NS
Total participants
9 (14)
7 (12)
13 (21)
13 (14)
3.34*
* p < .05. Total number of words was multiplied by 1,000 for comparability due to different text lengths. SLL1 same language memories in L1 (CS into L2), SLL2 same language memories in L2 (CS into L1), COL1 crossover memories in L1 (CS into L2), COL2 crossover memories in L2 (CS into L1)
Immigration Effects In comparing CS frequency for immigrant versus non-immigrant groups in the crossover versus same language memory conditions and the L1 versus the L2 conditions, an ANOVA showed significant differences once more among the four conditions F (3, 51) = 2.86, p < .05. A posthoc Bonferroni revealed a trend toward significance in the immigrants’ data ( p = 0.079) in crossover versus same language memories in L2 (14 vs. 7 switches per 1,000 words, respectively). No significant main effects or interactions were found for the non-immigrant group. Differences for Language Groups In order to clarify the role of each language group, a oneway ANOVA was conducted for the four CS conditions—same language memories in L1, same language memories in L2, crossover memories in L1, crossover memories in L2—for each group. The Georgian-Hebrew participants’ results were found to be significantly different from three out of the four language groups (Russian–Hebrew, Hebrew–English and Arabic–Hebrew) for the four conditions, F (3, 48) = 2.06, p < .05. A posthoc Bonferroni test showed a significantly higher frequency of CS in crossover memories than same language memories in L2 (18 vs. 11 codeswitches per thousand words, respectively) for the Georgian-Hebrew participants. Finally, it was hypothesized that there would be more CS in crossover memories than in same language memories and more CS instances in L2 than in L1 sessions. A t test conducted on the entire sample confirmed that CS instances were more numerous in crossover memories than in same language memories t (54) = 2.67, p < .05 as seen in Table 5. No significant results were found relating to the difference in CS in L1 and L2. When comparing immigrants and indigenous bilinguals in terms of frequency of CS in crossover and same language memories, significant differences were found for the immigrant group t (31) = 3.27, p < .01 but not for the non-immigrant group alone ( p > .05). No significant results were found relating to the difference in CS in L1 and in L2 in either the immigrant or non-immigrant groups.
123
J Psycholinguist Res Table 5 Frequency of CS instances in SL, CO, L1 and L2 Group
SL M (SD)
CO M (SD)
L1 M (SD)
L2 M (SD)
English–Hebrew immigrants
11 (8)
21 (18)
17 (14)
17 (10)
Georgian–Hebrew immigrants
17 (17)
31 (18)
32 (20)
15 (19)
Russian–Hebrew immigrants
3 (3)
6 (6)
4 (4)
5 (7)
Hebrew–English indigenous bilinguals
5 (5)
10 (3)
3 (4)
11 (8)
Arabic–Hebrew indigenous bilinguals
T (CO-SL)
11 (15)
9 (7)
8 (9)
11 (13)
Total immigrants
9 (11)
17 (17)
16 (17)
12 (13)
3.27*
Total indigenous bilinguals
8 (12)
9 (6)
6 (8)
10 (12)
NS
Total participants
9 (12)
14 (14)
12 (15)
11 (12)
2.67*
* p < .05. Total words were multiplied by 1,000 for comparability due to different text lengths. SL same language memories, CO crossover memories
Trends toward significance were observed in three of the five sub groups but due to the small number of participants in each group, these did not reach significance.
Discussion The present study examined bilingualism and autobiographical narrative by means of selfreported crossover memories and bilingual CS behavior. Crossover memories were found to be more frequent in L2 sessions, and same language memories were more frequent in L1 sessions, as predicted. These results were found for immigrant and indigenous bilinguals alike. In a more detailed examination of the different language groups in the study, four out of the five groups followed this same pattern. This finding replicates much of the work on bilingual autobiographical memory showing a high rate of crossover memories in bilinguals’ narrative recall (e.g., Schrauf and Rubin 1998). As a further entry point into the bilingualism of immigrants and indigenous minorities, the frequency of CS was examined for same language and crossover memories in L1 and L2 sessions. Results showed more CS in crossover memories in L2 than in any other condition. Finally, it was also found that in general there was more CS in crossover memories than in same language memories. This finding was was most salient for the immigrant group. No significant results were found relating to the difference in CS in L1 and in L2 sessions. This indicates that immigration makes a difference in bilinguals’ frequency of CS in crossover versus same language memories, but does not make a difference when comparing the frequency of CS in L1 and L2. Crossover Memories as Insight to Bilingual Memory The initial question corroborated a well-established finding that autobiographical memory is encoded for language (Francis 1999 i.e. ‘language dependent’ memory (Marian and Neisser 2000; Schrauf and Durazo-Arvizu 2006) This finding becomes clearer in light of the fact that memory for recall of the language of a conversation which took place only minutes before pales in comparison to memory for content (Berkowits 1984; Horiba 1996). One possible resolution of this apparent contradiction is that the studies cited here focus on short term, working memory, and studies of autobiographical narratives deal with long term, episodic memory. But this distinction cannot account for how a bilingual fails to recall accu-
123
J Psycholinguist Res
rately the language of a prior conversation immediately after it occurs, but up to 50 years later can and does distinguish between same language and crossover memories. The meaningful number of crossovers (25 % in Schrauf and Rubin 1998; 16–67 % in Marian and Neisser (2000); and 48 % in the present study) seems to indicate that some aspects of language may be recoverable from an original event, or at least from the reconstructed portions of that event. As discussed in Altman et al. (2012), when asked to retrieve the language of the memory, there is an attempt to detect the language of the experience. The language of experience may be accessed via sociolinguistic information about the setting, topic and people involved in the memory. In this way, self-reported recall of the language of a memory may involve a complex integral of information. It is also a unitary, ‘reproductive’ measure. It is the combination of complex, integrated judgments and reconstructed aspects of memory which may account for the crossover memories documented here, especially in the L2 sessions. From a more bilingual perspective, the crossovers in this study are evidence for activation of both languages. Despite the fact that the participant is instructed and cued in one language, s/he reports memories from the other language, evidence that traces of language cues remain in long term memory. In a study of lexical activation to examine “whether the presence of sentence context would modulate cross-language, non-selective activation,” Schwartz and Kroll (2006) concluded that “cross-language alternatives” are active at all stages of processing. In making this argument elsewhere, Kroll et al. (2008) distinguish L1 from L2 processing. L1 is claimed to be more proficient and ‘faster’ and thus less susceptible to L2 influence than the influence of L1 on L2. L2 is argued to involve more cross-language interaction, the state which leads to crossover memories in the present study. The data here suggest that in both L1 and L2 there is activation of the other language, as demonstrated by the prevalence of CS in all language groups even though the participants were not expected or encouraged to codeswitch. Nevertheless, the low frequencies of CS may also point to the possibility that the participants, like most bilinguals, are operating in ‘bilingual mode’ (Grosjean 2001). Codeswitching The higher frequency of CS found in crossover memories in this study lends support to the hypothesis that these two different measures of bilingualism are related. CS is a behavioral measure, which validates participants’ self-reported recall. Beyond this methodological point, the interest here is in why these two measures are related and more specifically, why crossover memories generate more CS. I propose that at the moment a participant retrieves a memory and reports it as a crossover, the ‘other’ language is activated along with the language of the session/cue word. When s/he is later asked to elaborate on this memory in an extended narrative, the ‘other’ language facilitates, perhaps even triggers, CS into the activated language. This interpretation conforms to a wide range of findings at the lexical level of processing, where both languages have been found to be activated (e.g. Francis 1999; Schwartz and Kroll 2006). While CS and crossovers are seen as related in terms of activation, they are nevertheless not totally identical in terms of processing. Crossover memories are conscious, metalinguistic recall judgments, providing insight into retrieval processes of personal events. These judgments, following Small and Nusbaum (2004), involve a more diffuse set of processes than CS, which is natural language use in context. CS draws on phonological, grammatical and pragmatic language processes which are more automatic. Despite this difference, both crossover memories and CS are nurtured by the fact that both languages are activated. This activation has cognitive effects on how people talk about their memories. That is, at the
123
J Psycholinguist Res
level of mental representation in memory, a crossover retains language-specific (L1 plus L2) information that “forces itself” into the narrative reporting of those memories. Immigrants Versus Indigenous Bilinguals Immigration was found to make a difference in the recall of same language and crossover memories in L1 but not in L2. Immigrants reported more memories in L2 and fewer memories in L1 than indigenous bilinguals when instructed and shown cue words in L1. In L2 sessions, however, when cues were shown in L2, for both immigrants and indigenous bilinguals, most memories were reported in L1. The difference between immigrants and indigenous bilinguals in the L1 sessions may be due to the immigrants’ motivation to acculturate, thus making them more likely to recall memories in L2, the language of their new environment. In terms of CS, immigrants produced more CS in crossover memories than in same language memories, while indigenous bilinguals used similar amounts of CS in crossovers and same language memories. For both immigrants and indigenous bilinguals, the difference in CS in L1 and L2 was not significant. This shows that the crossover-same language distinction is more sensitive than the L1–L2 distinction to differences between immigrants and indigenous bilinguals. There were no significant differences in the frequency of CS in L1 and L2 for both groups. F. Language Groups One issue pertinent to the discussion of bilingual autobiographical memory is cultural/linguistic background (Schrauf and Rubin 1998). Some of the subtle differences in the results would not have arisen if the analysis would have stopped with overall data or at the immigrant versus indigenous bilingual level. The importance of relating to the different language groups’ diversity is especially apparent when the data for the Georgian–Hebrew immigrants are considered. This group reported more crossover memories overall in both sessions and showed the largest amount of CS. This may be due to the fact that they know Georgian well, since they immigrated along with their communities from abroad and settled in closely-knit as well. Their sense of Georgian heritage thus remains both in their memory retrieval and in their language maintenance to a greater extent than other immigrants in this study. On the other hand, Hebrew symbolizes the language of the Bible and the state of Israel, the place to which they immigrated, some after years of longing. These bonds to their native language and to the language of the new country are sources of a merged identity, which finds expression in both crossover memories and CS. In sum, this investigation showed that memory is language-dependent and that bilingualism finds expression in large numbers of crossover memories. CS complements the findings for crossover memories, with the greatest amount of CS showing up for these particularly bilingual (crossover) memories. The CS measure was also found to be more sensitive to the crossover-same language comparison than to the differences in performance in L1 and L2, especially for immigrant bilinguals. Finally, the Georgian Israelis cultural-linguistic background stood out as distinct among all immigrant and indigenous bilinguals. References Altman, C., Gil, M., & Walters, J. (2012). Language choice in bilingual aphasia—memory and emotions. In M. Gitterman, M. Goral, & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Aspects of multilingual aphasia (pp. 171–186). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
123
J Psycholinguist Res Altman, C., Schrauf, R., & Walters, J. (2012). Crossovers and codeswitching in the investigation of immigrant autobiographical memory. In L. Isurin & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Memory, language, and bilingualism: Theoretical and applied approaches (pp. 211–235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, N. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London, England: Routledge. Berkowits, R. (1984). Recognition memory for input language in nonfluent bilinguals. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique: Cahiers de Linguistique Theorique et Appliquee, 21, 119–130. Bugelski, B. R. (1977). Imagery and verbal behavior. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1, 9–52. Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Colome, A. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language-specific or languageindependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 721–736. Francis, W. S. (1999). Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 193–222. Galton, F. (1879). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149–162. Gardner-Chloros, P., Charles, R., & Cheshire, J. (2000). Parallel patterns? A comparison of monolingual speech and bilingual codeswitching discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1305–1341. Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1997). Accommodation theory. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader (pp. 232–239). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell. Heredia, R. R., & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 164–168. Heredia, R. R., & Altarriba, J. (2002). Bilingual sentence processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Heredia, R. R., & Brown, J. M. (2006). Bilingual memory. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 213–228). MA: Blackwell Publishers. Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 433–473. Iluz-Cohen, P., & Walters, J. (2012). Telling stories in two Languages: Narratives of bilingual preschool children with typical and impaired language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 58–74. Kroll, J. F., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 169–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M. M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416–430. Larsen, S., Schrauf, R. W., Fromholt, P., & Rubin, D. C. (2002). Inner speech and bilingual autobiographical memory: A Polish-Danish cross-cultural study. Memory, 10, 45–54. MacSwan, J. (1999). A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching. New York: Garland. MacSwan, J. (2005). Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 1–22. Marian, V., & Neisser, U. (1997). Autobiographical memory in bilinguals. Presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, PA. Marian, V., & Neisser, U. (2000). Language -Dependent Recall of Autobiographical Memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 129, 361–368. Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2004). Self-construal and emotion in bicultural bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 190–201. Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Cross-linguistic transfer and borrowing in bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 369–390. Matras, Y. (2000). Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 505–528. Matsumoto, A., & Stanny, C. J. (2006). Language dependent access to autobiographical memory in JapaneseEnglish bilinguals and US monolinguals. Memory, 14, 378–390. Myers-Scotton, C. (2005). Contact Linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Otoya, M. (1987). A study of personal memories of bilinguals: The role of culture and language in memory encoding and recall. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Paradis, J., & Nicoladis, E. (2007). The Influence of dominance and sociolinguistic context on bilingual preschoolers’ language choice. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 277–297.
123
J Psycholinguist Res Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino espanol: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618. Rubin, D. C. (1980). 51 properties of 125 words: A unit analysis of verbal behavior. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 736–755. Sankoff, D. (2002). A mathematical model for the production of bilingual discourse. Presented at the Second University of Vigo International Symposiumon Bilingualism, Vigo, Galicia. Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (1998). Bilingual autobiographical memory in older adult immigrants: A test of cognitive explanations of the reminiscence bump and the linguistic encoding of memories. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 437–457. Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (2000). Internal languages of retrieval: The bilingual encoding of memories for the personal past. Memory and Cognition, 28, 616–623. Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (2001). Effects of voluntary immigration on the distribution of autobiographical memory over the lifespan. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 75–88. Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (2004). The ’language’ and ’feel’ of bilingual memory: Mnemonic traces. Estudios de Sociolinguistica, 5, 21–39. Schrauf, R. W., & Durazo-Arvizu, R. (2006). Bilingual autobiographical memory and emotion: Theory and methods. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and representation (pp. 284–311). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212. Small, S. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2004). On the neurobiological investigation of language understanding in context. Brain and Language, 89(2), 300–311. Stephens, D. A. (1986). Linguistic aspects of code-switching among Spanish/English bilingual children. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Von Studnitz, R. E., & Green, D. W. (2002). The cost of switching language in a semantic categorization task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 241–251. Walters, J. (2005). Bilingualism: The sociopragmatic-psycholinguistic interface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
123
