Competition of words

In psycholinguistic studies, the theory of between-language competition explains interference by the competition of words of the two languages (the source and target one) in the process of foreign language learning or usage. In this competition, the words of both languages are either activated (De Bot, 2004) or inhibited (Green, 1998; Kroll, Bobb, Misra, & Guo, 2008; Kroll, Bobb, & Wodniecka, 2006). The learner chooses appropriate words in the target language and inhibit the source language ones.

Have you ever blurted something out of language context? Something like the wrong word or accent or grammatical structure? According to Shannon, this happens not because of the poor knowledge or lack of words but because of the linguistic history leading to a “faulty selection of languages.” (1991, p. 345).

According to the Linguistic Proximity Model (Westergaard et al., 2017), interference is more common for similar languages known to a multilingual learner, especially if the learner is aware of these similarities or of the so-called cross-language overlap. When you believe that the two languages you know are similar this is called psychotypology (or perceived language distance) (Kellerman, 1983). This perception can be both at the language-general level (between languages belonging to the same family as Romance or Germanic, for example) and item- or structural level (Neuser, p.61). In any case, the perception of similarity/differences between languages can help you to make the learning process easier (Ellis, 1997; Matz, Teschmer and Weise, 1988, Ringbom, 1986).

Research suggests that interference often occurs between the similar languages because you have to put more effort into suppressing the source language knowledge (interference inhibition effect) (Antoniou and Wright, 2017). While with typologically distant languages it is also difficult because of the processing complexity effect caused by the lack of prior knowledge to rely on (Antoniou and Wright, 2017, p. 6; Schepens, van der Slik & van Hout, 2016).  The level of difficulty may depend on the number of common (isomorphic) and different (allomorphic) features of the language pair involved. Several parameters to define the typological distance between the languages were offered by Yan-Yi Lee such as writing system and script, the degree of shared lexical roots, tonality, orthographic depth and morphosyntactic structures (Lee, 2022).

Understanding the differences and similarities between the patterns of the source and target languages can help avoid interference and facilitate the process of the language learning.

What can you do about it?

To learn more about typological distance between languages:

  • Language Typology and Language Universals (2001). Edited by Martin Haspelmath et al. Volume 1.
  • Comrie, B. (1989) Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 275 p.
  • The Oxford handbook of language typology (2011). In Jae Jung Song (ed.). Oxford University Press.

References for further reading:

  1. Antoniou, M., & S. M. Wright. (2017). Uncovering the mechanisms responsible for why language learning may promote healthy cognitive aging. Frontiers in Psychology, 8: 2217–2217. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02217.
  2. De Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: modelling selection and control. International Journal of Multilingualism. 1. 17-32. 10.1080/1479071040866817.
  3. Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental Control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67-81.
  5. Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In Language Transfer in Language Learning, S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds), 112-134. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
  6. Kroll, J.F., Bobb, S.C., Misra, M., Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychol (Amst), 416-30. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.02.001. Epub 2008 Mar 20. PMID: 18358449; PMCID: PMC2585366.
  7. Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002483
  8. Lee, Y.-Y. (2022).  A conceptual analysis of typological distance and its potential consequences on the bilingual brain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 25(9), 3333–3346.
  9. Matz, K.-D., Teschmer, J., & Weise, G. (1988). Angewandte Fremdsprachenpsychologie und ihr Beitrag für die Effektivierung des Lernens und Lehrens von Fremdsprachen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 25, 224-230.
  10. Neuser, H. (2017). Source language of lexical transfer in multilingual learners: A mixed methods approach. [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University].
  11. Ringbom, H. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence and the foreign language learning process. In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, E. Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith (eds), 150-162. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  12. Schepens J., van der Slik F., van Hout R. (2016). L1 and L2 distance effects in learning L3 Dutch. Language Learning, 66, 224–256.
  13. Shanon, B. (1991). Faulty language selection in polyglots. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 339–350.
  14. Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Mykhaylyk, R., Rodina, Y. (2017). Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 666-682.