Abstract as per original application
(English/Chinese): |
Evidence from research on bilingualism has prompted the ‘bilingual advantage hypothesis’, positing that language control is needed when two languages are processed and such a control during bilingual processing enhances cognitive functioning. However, investigations have shown that, compared with bilinguals who are fluent in two spoken languages (unimodal bilinguals), those who use a signed language and a spoken language (sign-speech or bimodal bilinguals) do not seem to show a bilingual advantage (Emmorey, Luk, et al., 2008). It is assumed that the different language modalities (one signed and one spoken) in bimodal bilinguals allow simultaneous production of two languages and reduce the demands for language control because the two languages do not compete for the same articulatory output system (Emmorey, et al., 2016). Past studies often involve participants whose bilingual competency and experience are too diverse, making a comparison among studies difficult. Comparing bimodal and unimodal interpreters, highly advanced bilinguals who practice switching between two languages as a profession, can provide a window into whether bilingual advantage is modality specific. This study (the Bimodal Study) is an extension of an ongoing GRF supported study, “Assessing the scope of expertise-driven advantages in bilinguals: A comparison of interpreters and translators” (the Unimodal Study), where we gauge participants’ cognitive functioning in unimodal (speech-speech) interpreters, translators, interpreting students, and non-interpreter unimodal bilinguals to see if long-term engagement in an extreme bilingual activity such as simultaneous interpreting has significant consequences on cognitive abilities. The participants in this proposed Bimodal Study will be bimodal professional interpreters, students who receive interpreting training, and an age-matched control group composed of non-interpreter bimodal bilinguals, including students. The data from both groups of students will be collected three times throughout the two years when they receive their respective training. The data from professional interpreters and non-interpreter bilinguals will be collected one time and their performance in the various cognitive tests will be compared with students’ performance in the same tests. The same set of validated tests adopted for the Unimodal Study will be used in the Bimodal Study. We will compare the results from both studies to see if language modality is a differentiating factor for any observed effects, and if yes, how task demands associated with different modalities are manifested in the impacts on cognitive functions. Our unique approach to comparing two groups of bilinguals with different language modalities can shed light on the adaptive capacity of bilingual cognitive systems.
雙語研究依相關證據提出｢雙語優勢論｣，假設在處理雙語的過程中需要用到語言掌控機制，並預期使用這種掌控機制會強化認知功能。但另有研究顯示，與精通兩種口語的雙語者（單模雙語者）相比，使用手語和口語的雙語者（雙模雙語者）似乎並沒有雙語優勢 (Emmorey, Luk, et al., 2008)。假設指出，雙模雙語者因能利用不同語言模態（手語和口語）同時產生兩種語言，兩種語言不會用到相同的發音系統，因而減少對語言掌控之需求（Emmorey , et al., 2016)。參與前人研究之雙語者通常雙語能力和經驗相當不同，使得研究之間難以比較。傳譯員精通雙語，專業工作涉及兩種語言之轉換。欲了解雙語優勢是否與特定雙語模態有關，比較雙模和單模傳譯員是可行的作法。本「雙模研究」是我們「評估專門技能對雙語優勢的影響：口譯員與筆譯員之對比研究」（進行中的GRF「單模研究」）之延伸。在「單模研究」中，我們比較單模口譯員、筆譯員、口譯學生，以及一般單模雙語者之認知功能，以觀察長期從事高度挑戰之雙語活動（如同聲傳譯）是否對認知能力產生重大影響。本「雙模研究」之參與者是雙模專業傳譯員、接受傳譯培訓的學生，以及由一般雙模雙語者（包括學生）組成的年齡匹配對照組。兩組學生的數據將在他們接受各自培訓的兩年內分三次收集。專業傳譯員和一般雙語者的數據將一次收集。其在各種認知測試中的表現並將與學生在同樣認知測試之表現相互比較。在單模研究中採用的同一組認知測試將用於雙模研究。我們將比較兩項研究之結果，觀察語言模態是否能解釋可能看到的不同現象，並檢視不同模態的任務需求如何體現對認知功能之影響。我們比較兩組不同語言模式的雙語傳譯員，方法獨特，可能揭示雙語認知系統之可塑性。
|
