Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Online-First Articles

The Bilingual Dual-path model

Simulating bilingual production, processing, and development

ORCID logo | Radboud UniversityNijmegen
ORCID logo | Radboud UniversityNijmegen
Experimental research has yielded many important psycholinguistic findings in bi-/multilingualism. However, cognitive computational models of sentence processing were limited to the single-language case until recently. In this methodological review, we discuss cognitive modelling work that uses the Bilingual Dual-path model to simulate experimental research on bilingual sentence production, processing, and development. As a detailed example of such work, we then report on new simulations conducted with the model. Finally, we suggest directions for future cognitive modelling research using this model.
Keywords: bilingualism, sentence processing, computational models, syntax acquisition, neural networks
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Dual-path model
    • 2.1Model architecture and training
    • 2.2Structural priming
    • 2.3Acquisition
    • 2.4The comprehension process
  • 3.The Bilingual Dual-path model
    • 3.1Syntactic transfer
    • 3.2Bilingual acquisition
    • 3.3The comprehension process in L2 learning
    • 3.4Code switching
    • 3.5Cross-language structural priming
  • 4.New simulations: Structural priming between typologically unrelated languages
    • 4.1Method
      • 4.1.1Exploratory and confirmatory experiments
      • 4.1.2Artificial languages
      • 4.1.3Model configuration
      • 4.1.4Training and testing model accuracy
    • 4.2Simulated priming experiment
      • 4.2.1Simulated participants
      • 4.2.2Experimental trials
      • 4.2.3Procedure
    • 4.3Results
      • 4.3.1Analysis
    • 4.4Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion, limitations, and looking forward
    • 5.1Simulating individual differences: Limitations and opportunities
    • 5.2Modelling processing versus comprehension
    • 5.3Explaining model behaviour
    • 5.4Increasing scope
    • 5.5Increasing validity
  • Data availability statement
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 1 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.23072.kho
References (57)
References
Bates, D., Santiago Calderón, J. B., Kleinschmidt, D., Kelman, T., Babayan, S., Mogensen, P. K., … Noack, A. (2013). MixedModels.jl. Retrieved from [URL] DOI logo
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition, 112 (2), 300–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). From language-specific to shared syntactic representations: The influence of second language proficiency on syntactic sharing in bilinguals. Cognition, 127 (3), 287–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. (2017). Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Review, 59 (1), 65–98. Retrieved from DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Henrich, J., Adamou, E., Kemmerer, D., & Majid, A. (2022). Over-reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26 (12), 1153–1170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18 (3), 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F. (2002). Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science, 26 (5), 609–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 61 (3), 374–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Baumann, M., Pappert, S., & Fitz, H. (2015). Do lemmas speak German? A verb position effect in German structural priming. Cognitive Science, 39 (5), 1113–1130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113 (2), 234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S., & Chang, F. (2014). The p-chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369 (1634), 20120394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitz, H., & Chang, F. (2017). Meaningful questions: The acquisition of auxiliary inversion in a connectionist model of sentence production. Cognition, 166 1, 225–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Language ERPs reflect learning through prediction error propagation. Cognitive Psychology, 111 1, 15–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitz, H., Chang, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2011). A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. The Acquisition of Relative Clauses, 8 1, 39–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (1), 78–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, S. L. (2021). Toward computational models of multilingual sentence processing. Language Learning, 71 (S1), 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, S. L., Monaghan, P., & Tsoukala, C. (2019). Neural network models of language acquisition and processing. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human Language: From Genes and Brains to Behavior (pp. 277–291). The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., & Ferreira, V. S. (2009). Should I stay or should I switch? A cost-benefit analysis of voluntary language switching in young and aging bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35 (3), 640.Google Scholar
Gordon, J., & Dell, G. (2002). Learning to divide the labor between syntax and semantics: A connectionist account of deficits in light and heavy verb production. Brain and Cognition, 48 (2–3), 376–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W., & Wei, L. (2014). A control process model of code-switching. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29 (4), 499–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Kootstra, G. J. (2017). Structural priming within and across languages: A corpus-based perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (2), 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Beerts, S., Loncke, M., Desmet, T., & Bernolet, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax. Journal of Memory and Language, 90 1, 14–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet, S. (2017). The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (2), 219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58 (2), 214–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish–English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15 (6), 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janciauskas, M., & Chang, F. (2018). Input and age-dependent variation in second language learning: A connectionist account. Cognitive Science, 42 1, 519–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffreys, H. (1998). The theory of probability. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khoe, Y. H., Schoonen, R., Kootstra, G. J., & Frank, S. L. (2021). Simulating proficiency and exposure effects on cross-language structural priming in simultaneous bilinguals. In International Conference on Cognitive Modeling.Google Scholar
Khoe, Y. H., Tsoukala, C., Kootstra, G. J., & Frank, S. L. (2023). Is structural priming between different languages a learning effect? Modeling priming as error-driven implicit learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 38 1, 537–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kootstra, G. J., & Rossi, E. (2017). Moving beyond the priming of single-language sentences: A proposal for a comprehensive model to account for linguistic representation in bilinguals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutasi, T., Suffill, E., Gibb, C. L., Sorace, A., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2018). Shared representation of passives across Scottish Gaelic and English: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 2 (1–2), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahoz, C. M. (1991). Why are he and she a problem for Spanish learners of English? Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 7 1, 129–136.Google Scholar
Lederberg, A. R., & Morales, C. (1985). Code switching by bilinguals: Evidence against a third grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14 1, 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91 1, 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (1998). Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology, 37 (3), 243–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2019). Sla and the study of equitable multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal, 103 1, 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., Poliakov, A., Inoue, K., McLaughlin, J., Valentine, G., Pitkanen, I., … Hirschensohn, J. (2008). Second-language learning and changes in the brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21 (6), 509–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39 (4), 633–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reitter, D., Keller, F., & Moore, J. D. (2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35 (4), 587–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryskin, R., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2023). Prediction during language comprehension: what is next? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntactic processing in Korean–English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition, 112 (1), 175–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soskey, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Midgley, K. J. (2016). Language effects in second-language learners: A longitudinal electrophysiological study of Spanish classroom learning. Brain Research, 1646 1, 44–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamargo, R. E. G., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Dussias, P. E. (2016). Examining the relationship between comprehension and production processes in code-switched language. Journal of Memory and Language, 89 1, 138–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (2), 277–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (2), 367–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2003). Connectionist models of development, developmental disorders, and individual differences. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. Lubart (Eds.), Models of Intelligence: International Perspectives (pp. 133–150). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 173–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsoukala, C. (2021). Bilingual sentence production and code-switching: Neural network simulations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Tsoukala, C., Broersma, M., Van Den Bosch, A., & Frank, S. L. (2021). Simulating code-switching using a neural network model of bilingual sentence production. Computational Brain & Behavior, 4 1, 87–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsoukala, C., Frank, S. L., & Broersma, M. (2017). ‘He’s pregnant’: Simulating the confusing case of gender pronoun errors in L2 English. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3392–3397).Google Scholar
Tsoukala, C., Frank, S. L., Van Den Bosch, A., Valdés Kroff, J., & Broersma, M. (2019). Simulating Spanish–English code-switching: El modelo está generating code-switches. In CMCL 2019: Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Modeling the auxiliary phrase asymmetry in code-switched Spanish–English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24 1, 271–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Twomey, K., Chang, F., & Ambridge, B. (2013). A distributional learning account of the acquisition of the locative alternation: Corpus analysis and modeling. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1498–1503).Google Scholar
Van Doorn, J., Aust, F., Haaf, J. M., Stefan, A. M., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2023). Bayes factors for mixed models: Perspective on responses. Computational Brain & Behavior, 6 (1), 127–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gompel, R. P., & Arai, M. (2018). Structural priming in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21 (3), 448–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verwijmeren, S., Frank, S. L., Fitz, H., & Khoe, Y. H. (2023). A neural network simulation of event-related potentials in response to syntactic violations in second-language learning. In International Conference on Cognitive Modeling.Google Scholar
(2024). Simulating event-related potentials in bilingual sentence comprehension: syntactic violations and syntactic transfer. In International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. DOI logoGoogle Scholar