Does increased L2 proficiency affect L1 speech production?

第二語能力的增長，是否會影響第一語的口說表達？從第一語圖片命名作業的表現來看

10.7084/LIS.201112.0035

鄭育霖(Yu-Lin Cheng)

第二語負面影響 ； 圖片命名作業 ； bilingual disadvantage ； picture naming

語文與國際研究

8期（2011 / 12 / 01）

33 - 51

英文

第二語能力的增長，對第一語（受試者的母語或強勢語）是否有負面的影響（Disadvantage），是學界非常關注的議題。Gollan等人（2008）和Ivanova和Costa（2008）的研究指出：在以‘第一語（受試者的母語或強勢語）’進行圖片命名作業（Picture Naming Task）時，‘第二語能力較高者’的命名表現劣於‘第二語能力較低者’。學者提出‘分散頻率假說（Divided Frequency of Use Hypothesis）’和‘第二與干擾假說（Cross-Lanfuage Interference Hypothesis）’來解釋研究結果。本文的目的即在檢驗（1）擁有不同英語程度（第二語）的兩組中文為第一語（母語兼強勢語）的受試者，在以中文進行圖片命名作業的表現上，是否真有顯著的差異與（2）上述兩假說是否可解釋本文的結果。本研究的結果顯示：英文能力較高者與英文能力較低者，在以中文進行圖片命名作業的表現上，並沒有顯著的差異。本研究和Gollan等人的研究最大的不同在於，本研究兩組受試者的第一語是其母語兼強勢語，因此兩組受試者的第一語能力是相當的，而兩組的不同只在第二語的能力上。反觀，Gollan等人的兩組受試者，除了第二語能力上有明顯的不同之外，其第一語的能力上也有明顯的不同。因此，第二語能力之外，受試者第一語的能力，或許也是決定其第一語是否‘受到’或‘免於’分散頻率假說影響的重要因素。本研究和Ivanova和Costa的研究最大的不同在於，本研究兩組受試者接受測驗的當下所處的社會語言環境（Sociolinguistic Environment）皆明確意指：‘第一語’才是此情境中最恰當的使用語言。反觀，Ivanova和Costa的兩組受試者接受測驗的當下所面臨的社會語言環境，卻可能導致‘第二語能力較高的受試者’認為‘第二語’才是該情境中最恰當的使用語言。因此，第二語能力之外，受試者在接受測驗的當下所處的社會語言環境，或許也是決定其第一語是否‘受到’或‘免於’第二語干擾假說影響的重要因素。

The question examined in the current study was whether increased L2 proficiency results in slower L1 production. To this purpose, a Chinese picture naming experiment was conducted to compare the performance of Taiwanese native Chinese speakers, among whom some had a low English (L2) proficiency and others an intermediate English (L2) proficiency was not replicated in the current study. Reasons for the current result were discussed, and a word of caution on interpreting bilinguals' language performance using the divided frequency of use and the cross-language interference hypotheses was offered.

1. Bialystok, E.(2001).Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition.New York:Cambridge University Press.
2. Bialystok, E.(1999).Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind.Child Development,70,636-644.
3. Bialystok, E.,Craik, F. I. M.,Ruocco, A. C.(2006).Dual-modality monitoring in a classification task: The effects of bilingualism and ageing.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,59(11),1968-1983.
4. Bialystok, E.,Martin, M.(2004).Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sorting task.Developmental Science,7,325-339.
5. Bowers, J. S.,Minouni, Z.,Arguin, M.(2000).Orthography plays a critical role in cognate priming: evidence from French/English and ArabiclFrench cognates.Memory and Cognition,28,1289-1296.
6. Cheng, Y. L.,Howard, D.(2008).The time cost of mixed-language processing: An investigation.International Journal of Bilingualism,12(3),209-222.
7. Costa, A.,Hernandez, M.,Costa-Faidella, J.,Sebastian-Galles, N.(2009).On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don't.Cognition,113,135-149.
8. De Groot, A. M. B.(Ed.),Kroll, J.(Ed.)(1997).Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
9. De Groot, A. M. B.,Nas, J. L. G.(1991).Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals.Journal of Memory and Language,30,90-123.
10. Fishman, J.(1965).Who speaks what language to whom and when?.La Linguistique,2,67-88.
11. Gollan, T. H.,Montoya, R. I.,Cera, C.,Sandoval, T. C.(2008).More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis.Journal of Memory and Language,58,787-814.
12. Grainger, J.(Ed.),Jacobs, A.(Ed.)(1998).Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
13. Green, D.(1998).Mental control of the bilingual lexicosemantic system.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,1,67-81.
14. Green, D.(1986).Control, activation and resource.Brain and Languag,27,210-223.
15. Grosjean, F.(1998).Studying bilinguals: methodology and conceptual issues.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,1,131-149.
16. Grosjean, F.(1982).Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism.Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press.
17. Grosjean, F.(1998).Transfer and language mode.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,1(3),175-176.
18. Ivanova, I.,Costa, A.(2008).Does bilingualism hamper lexical access m speech production?.Acta Psychologica,127,277-288.
19. McLaughlin, B.(1978).Second-Language Acquisition in Childhood.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
20. Meuter, R. F. I.,Allport, A.(1999).Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection.Journal of Memory and Language,40,25-40.
21. Nicol, J.(Ed.)(2001).One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing.Oxford:Blackwell.
22. Pallier, C.,Colome, A.,Sebastian-Galles, N.(2001).The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries.Psychological Science,12,445-449.
23. Poplack, S.(1980).Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espanol: toward a typology of code-switching.Linguistics,18,581-618.
24. Poulisse N.,Bongaerts, T.(1994).First language use in second language production.Applied Linguistics,15,36-57.
25. Ransdell, S. E.,Fischler, I.(1987).Memory in a monolingual mode: When are bilinguals at a disadvantage?.Journal of Memory and Language,26(44),392-405.
26. Valdes, G.,Figueroa, R. A.(1995).Bilingualism and Testing: A special case of bias.Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
27. Van Heuven, W.,Dijkstra, T.,Grainger, J.(1998).Orthographic neighbourhood effects in bilingual word recognition.Journal of Memory and Language,39,458-483.

1. 陳俊光、張苾含、胡潔芳(2013)。英漢雙語學童聲韻覺識及構詞覺識與英漢認字能力之相關研究。教育心理學報，45(2)，201-220。