Bilinguals and Their Perceptions of Both Languages in Their Brains

This descriptive research examines the perception of bilingual students on the status of the mother tongue (L1) and the second language (L2) in their brains. The question of the influence or non-influence of L1 in using L2 has been studied under different theoretical frameworks. The issue of the representation of the languages in the brain has also been considered from a neurological perspective. However, no study has been undertaken on how bilinguals themselves perceive both languages in their minds. Do students see L1 and L2 as being together in one system, separate and independent of each other, or independent but sharing an intersection? The sample available to the researcher was 54 high school bilingual students. The research instruments are a questionnaire and a semi-structured face-to-face interview. The results of this study show that the highest percentage of students believe that both languages are independent of each other but share an intersection. All students have compared both languages, and have established differences and similarities between L1 and L2 through mental translations.

would say that it depends on how distant L1 is from English. Is the difficulty a question of perception?
In this study, it is not essential to determine which language is more complicated than the other but to examine if the difficulty of the language would be a factor to take into consideration in the perception of both languages in the brain.
Regarding the influence of L1 on L2 through the analysis of errors, three positions coexist: L1 exerts an important influence on L2; L1 exerts a partial influence on L2, and L1 does not exert any influence on L2. Falla-Wood (2017) suggests that the choice of a theoretical framework could explain the coexistence of these three positions. The results of studies, which the underlying conceptual framework was strategy-cognitivist, show a continuum from partial to a substantial influence of L1. In contrast, those using a linguistic-conceptual framework indicate a minimal or a non-influence of L1.
Different concepts, theories, or models have been used to explain the influence or non-influence of L1 in learning and speaking L2. Odlin (1989) defines transfer as the effect or influence that similarities and differences between L1 and L2 have on the learners of L2. Zobl (1984) states that the Positive Transfer strategy is used when L1 and L2 have the same structures, and Negative Transfer or Interference when L1 and L2 have different structures. The concept of Interlanguage proposed for the first time by Selinker (1972) is presented as an intermediate language different from L1 and L2. The concept of Interlanguage does not make a distinction between the types of knowledge. Bialystok (1982) tries to define the role of the instruction in L2 and distinguishes two types of knowledge: the implicit knowledge, which is the interiorized knowledge, and the explicit knowledge, which the conscious knowledge. For the strategies that learners used in L2, O'Malley et al. (1985aO'Malley et al. ( , 1985b define these strategies as steps that the learners take to increase their comprehension and expression in L2. They classify 26 strategies in three different categories: cognitive, metacognitive, and social. In this classification, mental translation is considered a cognitive strategy. Falla-Wood (2018) proposes that the students use a Mental Translation Strategy (MTS) to compare and establish similarities and differences between both languages. These comparisons create a translational zone where the similarities and differences of both languages are placed. The product of MTS becomes a procedural knowledge, stored in the long-term memory; the learners will retrieve automatically and unconsciously the information from their translational zone to communicate in L2. The constant passage between L1 and L2 could explain the errors, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it could explain the code-switching that happens between bilinguals.
For the theories in L2, Ellis (2002) proposes the Connectionism Model, a model where it is the frequency of language input, which creates associations in the brain. MacWhinney, Bates and Kliegl, (1984) put forth the Competition Model, where they claim that the learners do not rely on linguistic universals but use cues to understand L2. McLaughlin (1987) states that the capacity of the learners to process information depends on the tasks required and their ability to process information. Thus, learning an L2 is like executing any other complex activity. O'Malley et al. (1987O'Malley et al. ( , 1990 try to insert www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/sll Studies in Linguistics and Literature Vol. 4, No. 3, 2020 the learning strategies in Anderson's Automaticity Model (1983Model ( , 1985 and claim that the cognitive and metacognitive strategies can be classified as procedural knowledge. For the Noticing Hypothesis, Schmidt (1990) posits that the learners must be able to "notice" the differences between their Interlanguage structures and the L2 to improve their acquisition in L2. Ullman (2001) applies the Automaticity Model (Anderson, 1983(Anderson, , 1985(Anderson, , 1992 to understand how the declarative knowledge (what we know or static information) and the procedural knowledge (what we know how to do or dynamic information) related to language are stored in the memory.
As mentioned above, concepts and theories have been developed to understand second language acquisition, and it is still a field to be explored. In this paper and for practical purposes, it is important to define specific terms employed in this paper. The term system will be used to point out the mental processes made by the bilingual student, and the term model will be used to point out a set of concepts.
The four models proposed are the Single System, which refers to Paradis' Extended System Hypothesis; the Double System, which refers to the Dual System Hypothesis; the Intertwined System, which refers to the Tripartite System Hypothesis, and, finally, the Double Subsystem, which refers to the Subsystem Hypothesis.

Single System
From the psycholinguistic perspective in second language acquisition, the Single System gathers those researchers who believe that the learning processes for L1 and L2 are the same. These researchers, under the influence of Chomsky's Language Theory (1965), postulate the intervention of universal principles, which are grammar properties applicable to all languages and parameters, which are specific properties applicable to each language. Therefore, the acquisition of L2 follows the same phases of development as L1. The influence of L1 on L2 is negligible. Clahsen and Muysken (1986) suggest that L1 has minimal influence on learning an L2. Dulay and Burt (1974b) undertake a study with 60 Spanish-speaking children and 55 Mandarin-speaking children and find that the sequence of acquisition of function words is the same for both groups even though their L1s have linguistic distance. Flynn (1984,1987) suggests that the learners have access to all parameters, and the difficulties the learners encounter in L2 are the same as in L1. Hawkins (2001) supports the view that the syntactic performance of L2 learners shows the use of universal principles. Krashen (1982Krashen ( , 1983 proposes that linguistic Interference is due to ignorance and not to the influence of L1. Liceras (1988aLiceras ( , 2007 states that the learners have access to all parameters, but they prefer to use the L1 parameters. Meisel, Clahsen, and Pienemann (1981) point out that the learners follow an order of acquisition in L1 and L2, and this order is independent of their social profile or their L1. Schachter (1989) claims that the learners have access to the universal principles and the parameters that they have already established in L1. Slabakova (2006) argues that Universal Grammar plays an essential role in the acquisition of L2.
White (1985, 1986, and 2003) posits that the learners use the L1 parameters, and when their competence increases in L2, they will use L2 parameters. Wode (1981) suggests that the mechanisms www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/sll Studies in Linguistics and Literature Vol. 4, No. 3, 2020 responsible for the acquisition of L1 are the same for L2. From a neurolinguistics perspective, Paradis (2004) hypothesizes that two languages in the same cortical zone of the brain constitute one neuro-functional system: the language system.

Double System
The Double System gathers those researchers who believe that the learning processes for L1 and L2 are separate and independent. Only two researchers in second language acquisition support this position: Fries (1945, p. 6) defines language as "a set of habits for oral production and reception". He claims that the students will not learn a language unless the automatic habits have been established. Lado (1957) develops the contrastive analysis theory, which helps to identify the difficulties a learner will encounter in learning a second language. They believe, under the influence of the behavioural approach, that it is possible to create two independent systems in the learner's brain. Selinker (1972Selinker ( , 1992 uses for the first time the term interlanguage. He observes that second language learners use different linguistic structures from native speakers to communicate the same message. As these linguistic structures are different, the two linguistic systems are also separate. The Interlanguage is an intermediate language, which is independent of both L1 and L2. Paradis (2004) presents the hypothesis of two different neurophysiological entities. These two systems will exist separately and independently. once, and what is different and specific to each language is located in different neural structures.

Double Subsystems
Paradis (1987) also proposes a hypothesis called subsystems. According to this hypothesis, both L1 and L2 have two subsystems, which exist in one system: the language, but both subsystems retain their autonomy. In the Double Subsystems, bilinguals would possess two subsystems of neural connections, one for each language, and they will activate each subsystem independently. The frequency of code-switching and code-mixing may be a factor in how these two languages are processed (Grojeans, 1089). Grojeans and Li (2013) propose that both languages are active to a different degree, depending on the similarities and differences between both languages. This hypothesis could be represented as follows.

Figure 4. Double Subsystems
One controversial point expressed by Paradis (2009) is whether both languages are active at the same time in the brain, or whether one is activated while the other is deactivated. Is the mixing of languages a matter of lack of control, or lack of knowledge of L2, or is it because both languages are active at the same time, or could it be just a question of accessibility to a word in one language while speaking the other? How do bilinguals themselves perceive both languages in their brain? Do students perceive L1 and L2 as being together in one system, separate and independent of each other in two separate systems, L2 L1