1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1879-7865
  • E-ISSN: 1879-7873
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article presents a large scope of issues on early and late language plasticity that increase our understanding of the neurobehavioral dynamics of change, the main property of the learning brain. In their pioneering work, Bates and Kuhl have convincingly demonstrated that plasticity is intrinsic to development. Bates has provided new data on the impressive recovery of language in children with focal brain injury, highlighting that both hemispheres support the early phases of this change, contrary to previous assumptions. The fundamental reorganization of the early phonemic system around the age of 8 months proposed by Kuhl, combining neural commitment and social abilities, has powerful cascading effects for subsequent word learning. Our developmental crosslinguistic research on online sentence processing in monolinguals and simultaneous bilinguals has revealed distinctive linguistic patterns of “cue cost”, a multifactorial concept relevant for capturing the microplasticity of the processing system. Whatever the language, the shift around the age of 9 towards the canonical adult pattern indicates an efficient adaptive processing occurring with a small delay in bilinguals. Most salient, from childhood, bilinguals exhibit specific cue cost patterns with interactions. In older French adults, cue cost variability is mediated by processing speed which preserves online syntactic abilities but reveals plasticity limits in Alzheimer’s patients.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lia.20016.kai
2021-07-27
2021-09-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amichetti, N., White, A., & Wingfield, A.
    (2016) Multiple solutions to the same problem: utilization of plausibility and syntax in sentence comprehension by older adults with impaired hearing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 789. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00789
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00789 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, E.
    (1999) Plasticity, localization and language development. InS. Broman & J. Fletcher (Eds.), The changing nervous system: Neurobehavioral consequences of early brain disorders (pp.214–253). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, E., & Elman, J.
    (1996) Learning rediscovered. Science, 274(5294), 1849–1850. 10.1126/science.274.5294.1849
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1849 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, E., Thal, D., Trauner, D., Fenson, J., Aram, D., Eisele, J., & Nass, R.
    (1997) From first words to grammar in children with focal brain injury. Developmental Neuropsychology, 13, 275–343. 10.1080/87565649709540682
    https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649709540682 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, E., & Roe, K.
    (2001) Language development in children with unilateral brain injury. InC. Nelson & M. Luciana (Eds.), Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience (pp.281–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates, E., Devescovi, A., & Wulfeck, B.
    (2001) Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 369–398. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.369
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.369 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bates, E., Reilly, J., Wulfeck, B., Dronkers, N., Opie, M., Fenson, J., Kriz, S., Jeffries, R., Miller, L., & Herbst, K.
    (2002) Differential effects of unilateral lesions on language production. Production in children and adults. Brain and Language, 79(2), 223–265. 10.1006/brln.2001.2482
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2482 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bates, E., Thal, D., Finlay, B., & Clancy, B.
    (2003) Early language development and its neural correlates. InS. Segalowitz & I. Rapin (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology, Vol.8, Child neuropsychology (pp.525–592). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Beese, C., Werkle-Bergner, M., Lindenberger, U., Friederici, A., & Meyer, L.
    (2019) Adult age differences in the benefit of syntactic and semantic constraints for sentence processing. Psychology and Aging, 34(1), 43–55. 10.1037/pag0000300
    https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000300 [Google Scholar]
  10. Best, C. & McRoberts, G.
    (2003) Infant perception of nonnative consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Language and Speech, 46, 183–216. 10.1177/00238309030460020701
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309030460020701 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bialystok, E.
    (2017) The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 233–262. 10.1037/bul0000099
    https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000099 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bickel, C., Pantel, J., Eysenbach, K., & Schröder, J.
    (2000) Syntactic comprehension deficits in Alzheimer’s Disease. Brain and Language, 71, 432–448. 10.1006/brln.1999.2277
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2277 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blackwell, A., & Bates, E.
    (1995) Inducing agrammatic profiles in normal: Evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 228–257. 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.2.228
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.2.228 [Google Scholar]
  14. Boysson-Bardies, B., & Vihman, M.
    (1991) Adaptation to language: evidence from babbling and first words in four languages. Language, 67, 297–319. 10.1353/lan.1991.0045
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0045 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brauer, J., Xiao, Y., Poulain, T., Friederici, A., & Schirmer, A.
    (2016) Frequency of maternal touch predicts resting activity and connectivity of the developing social brain. Cerebral Cortex, 26(8), 3544–3552. 10.1093/cercor/bhw137
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw137 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A.
    (2002) The importance of the eyes: How infants interpret adult looking behavior. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 958–966. 10.1037/0012‑1649.38.6.958
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.958 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cabeza, R.
    (2002) Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: The Harold Model. Psychology and Aging, 17, 85–100. 10.1037/0882‑7974.17.1.85
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.85 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chiron, C., Jambaque, I., Nabbout, R., Lounes, R., Syrota, A., & Dulac, O.
    (1997) The right brain hemisphere is dominant in human infants. Brain, 120, 1057–1065. 10.1093/brain/120.6.1057
    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/120.6.1057 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cook, V.
    (ed.) (2003) Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596346
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596346 [Google Scholar]
  20. Davis, S., Dennis, N., Daselaar, S., Fleck, M., & Cabeza, R.
    (2008) Que PASA? The posterior-anterior shift in aging. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 1201–1209. 10.1093/cercor/bhm155
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm155 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Houwer, A.
    (2005) Early bilingual acquisition: Focus on morphosyntax and the Separate Development Hypothesis. InJ. Kroll & A. de Groot (Eds.) Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.30–48). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Devescovi, A., & D’Amico, S.
    (2005) The Competition Model. Crosslinguistic studies of onlineprocessing. InM. Tomasello & D. Slobin (Eds.) Beyond Nature-Nurture. Essays in Honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp.165–191). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dick, F., Bates, E., Ferstl, E., & Friederici, A.
    (1999) Receptive agrammatism in English- and German-speaking college students processing under stress. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11 (Suppl.1), 48.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Elman, J.
    (2001) Connectionism and language acquisition. InM. Tomasello & E. Bates (Eds.) Language development/ The essential readings (pp.295–307). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K.
    (1996) Rethinking innateness. A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Engle, R.
    (2002) Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00160
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fedorenko, E., & Thompson-Schill, S.
    (2014) Reworking the language network. Trends in Cognitive Science, 18(3), 120–126. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fenson, L., Marchmann, V., Thal, D., Dale, P., Reznick, J., & Bates, E.
    (2006) MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. Baltimore: Brookes.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fernald, A., & Simon, T.
    (1984) Expanded intonation contours in mothers’ speech to newborns. Developmental Psychology, 20, 104–113. 10.1037/0012‑1649.20.1.104
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.1.104 [Google Scholar]
  30. Friederici, A., Brauer, J., & Lohmann, G.
    (2011) Maturation of the language network: From inter- to intrahemispheric connectives. PLoS ONE, 6(6), 20726. 10.1371/journal.pone.0020726
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020726 [Google Scholar]
  31. Genesee, F.
    (2002) Portraits of the bilingual child. InV. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 User (pp.167–178). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853595851‑009
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595851-009 [Google Scholar]
  32. Greenough, W., Black, J., & Wallace, C.
    (1987) Experience and brain development. Child Development, 58(3), 539–559. 10.2307/1130197
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1130197 [Google Scholar]
  33. Grosjean, F.
    (1989) Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. 10.1016/0093‑934X(89)90048‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gullberg, M.
    (1994) Who is doing what to whom? Testing the Competition Model on Swedish. Working Papers at the Department of Linguistics and Phonetics. Lund: Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hari, R., & Kujala, M.
    (2009) Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging. Physiological Reviews, 89(2), 453–479. 10.1152/physrev.00041.2007
    https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2007 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hasher, L., Lustig, C., & Zacks, R.
    (2007) Inhibitory mechanisms and the control of attention. InA. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake, & A. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp.227–249). NewYork: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hauser, M., Newport, E., & Aslin, R.
    (2001) Segmentation of the speech stream in a non -human primate: statistical learning in cotton-top tamarins. Cognition, 78, 53–64. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00132‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00132-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D.
    (2007) The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience8, 393–402. 10.1038/nrn2113
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2113 [Google Scholar]
  39. Isel, F., & Kail, M.
    (2019) Neuroplasticity, network connectivity and language processing across the lifespan. Brain and Cognition, Special Issue, 134, 67–70. 10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kail, M.
    (1989) Cue validity, cue cost and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spanish. InB. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp.72–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (1999) Linguistic variations and cognitive constraints in the processing and the acquisition of language. InC. Fuchs & S. Robert (Eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations (pp.179–194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.3.15kai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.3.15kai [Google Scholar]
  42. (2004) Online grammaticality judgments in French children and adults. A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of Child Language, 31, 713–737. 10.1017/S030500090400649X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090400649X [Google Scholar]
  43. (2012) Online sentence processing from children and adults: General and specific constraints. A crosslinguistic study in four languages. InM. Watorek, S. Benazzo, & M. Hickmann (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on language acquisition. A tribute to Clive Perdue (pp.586–615). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847696045‑031
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847696045-031 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kail, M., & Hickmann, M.
    (2010) New perspectives in the study of first and second language acquisition: Linguistic and cognitive constraints. InM. Kail & M. Hickmann (Eds.). Language acquisition across linguistic and cognitive systems (pp.1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.52.01kai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.52.01kai [Google Scholar]
  45. Kail, M., Costa, A., & Hub Faria, I.
    (2010) On-line grammaticality judgments: A comparative study of French and Portuguese. InM. Kail & M. Hickmann (Eds.), Language acquisition across linguistic and cognitive systems (pp.179–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.52.13kai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.52.13kai [Google Scholar]
  46. Kail, M., Kihlstedt, M., & Bonnet, P.
    (2012a) On-line sentence processing in Swedish: Crosslinguistic developmental comparisons with French. Journal of Child Language, 39(1), 28–60. 10.1017/S0305000910000723
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000910000723 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2018) On-line sentence processing in simultaneous French/Swedish bilinguals. InM. Hickmann, E. Veneziano, & H. Jisa (Eds.), Sources of variation in first language acquisition. Languages, contexts and learners (pp.313–338). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.22.16kai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.22.16kai [Google Scholar]
  48. Kail, M., Lemaire, P., & Lecacheur, M.
    (2012b) Online grammaticality judgments in young and older French adults. Experimental Aging Research, 38, 1–22. 10.1080/0361073X.2012.660031
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2012.660031 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kail, R., & Salthouse, T.
    (1994) Processing speed as a mental capacity. Acta Psychologica, 86, 199–225. 10.1016/0001‑6918(94)90003‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(94)90003-5 [Google Scholar]
  50. Karmiloff-Smith, A.
    (1992) Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1999) Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(2), 129–171. 10.1080/016909699386329
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386329 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kennedy, D., & Adolphs, R.
    (2012) The social brain in psychiatric and neurological disorders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(11), 559–572. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kroll, J., & Bialystok, E.
    (2013) Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 497–514. 10.1080/20445911.2013.799170
    https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.799170 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kroll, J., Dussias, P., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L.
    (2015) Bilingualism, mind and the brain. Annual Review of Linguistics1, 377–394. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑124937
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124937 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kuhl, P.
    (1998) The development of speech and language. InT. Carey, R. Menzel, & C. Shatz (Eds.), Mechanistic relationship between development and learning (pp.53–73). New York, NY: John Wiley & So Ldt.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (2004) Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–841. 10.1038/nrn1533
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1533 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2007) Is speech learning “gated” by the social brain?Developmental Science, 10(1), 110–120. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2007.00572.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00572.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Kuhl, P., & Meltzoff, A.
    (1996) Infant vocalizations in response to speech: Vocal imitation and developmental change. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100 (4Pt1) 2425–2438. 10.1121/1.417951
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.417951 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kuhl, P., Tsao, F., & Liu, H.
    (2003) Foreign- language experience in infancy: effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 9096–9101. 10.1073/pnas.1532872100
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1532872100 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kuhl, P., Convoy, B., Padden, D., Nelson, T., & Pruitt, J.
    (2005) Early speech perception and later language development: Implications for the “critical period”. Language Learning and Development, 1 (3&4), 237–264. 10.1207/s15473341lld0103&4_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0103&4_2 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kuhl, P., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, A., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P.
    (2006) Infants show facilitation for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9, 13–21. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2006.00468.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00468.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Kuhl, P., Ramirez, R., Bosseler, A., Lotus Lin, J. -F., & Imada, T.
    (2014) Infants’ brain responses to speech suggest Analysis by Synthesis. PNAS111, 31, 11238–11245. 10.1073/pnas.1410963111
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410963111 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lautrey, J.
    (2003) A pluralist approach to cognitive differentiation and development. InR. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. Lubart (Eds.), Models of intelligence: International perspectives (pp.117–131). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Lenneberg, E.
    (1967) Biological foundations of language. New York NY: Wiley. 10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lindenberger, U.
    (2014) Human cognitive aging: Corriger la fortune?Science, 346, 6209, 572–578. 10.1126/science.1254403
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254403 [Google Scholar]
  66. Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P.
    (1992) Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 451–484. 10.1017/S0142716400005762
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400005762 [Google Scholar]
  67. Lövdén, M., Bäckman, L., Lindenberger, U., Schaefer, S., & Schmiedek, F.
    (2010) A theoretical framework for the study of adult cognitive plasticity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 659–676. 10.1037/a0020080
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020080 [Google Scholar]
  68. MacDonald, M., Almor, A., Henderson, V., Kempler, D., & Andersen, E.
    (2001) Assessing working memory and language comprehension in Alzheimer’s Disease. Brain and Language78, 17–42. 10.1006/brln.2000.2436
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2436 [Google Scholar]
  69. Mackay, D., & James, L.
    (2004) Sequencing, speech production, and selective effects of aging on phonological and morphological speech errors. Psychology and Aging19, 93–107. 10.1037/0882‑7974.19.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  70. MacWhinney, B.
    (1987) The Competition Model. InB. MacWhinney (Ed.). Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp.249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  71. MacWhinney, B., & E. Bates
    (Eds.) (1989) The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Marchman, V., Miller, R., & Bates, E.
    (1991) Babble and first words in infants with focal brain injury. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(1), 1–22. 10.1017/S0142716400009358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009358 [Google Scholar]
  73. Martinez, A., Moses, P., Frank, L., Buxton, R., Wong, E., & Stiles, J.
    (1997) Hemispheric asymmetries in global and local processing: Evidence from fRMI. NeuroReport, 8(7), 1685–1689. 10.1097/00001756‑199705060‑00025
    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199705060-00025 [Google Scholar]
  74. McDonald, J.
    (1989) The acquisition of cue-category mappings. InB. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp.375–396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Menon, V.
    (2013) Developmental pathways to functional brain networks: emerging principles. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(2), 627–640. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.015 [Google Scholar]
  76. Mills, D., Coffey-Corina, S., & Neville, H.
    (1997) Language comprehension and cerebral specialization from 13 to 20 months. InD. Thal & J. Reilly (Eds.), Origins of Communication Disorders (Special Issue). Developmental Neuropsychology, 13, 397–445. 10.1080/87565649709540685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649709540685 [Google Scholar]
  77. Neville, H. J., & Bavelier, D.
    (2002) Specificity and plasticity in neurocognitive development in humans. InM. Johnson, Y. Munakata, & R. Gilmore (Eds.), Brain development and cognition: A reader (pp.251–271). Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Oberauer, K., Wendland, M., & Kliegl, R.
    (2003) Age differences in working memory: The role of storage and selective access. Memory and Cognition, 31, 563–569. 10.3758/BF03196097
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196097 [Google Scholar]
  79. Ramachandran, V.
    (1993) Behavioral and magnetoencephalographic correlates of plasticity in the adult human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90, 10413–10420. 10.1073/pnas.90.22.10413
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.90.22.10413 [Google Scholar]
  80. Reilly, J., Bates, E., & Marchman, V.
    (1998) Narrative discourse in children with early focal brain injury. Brain and Language, 61(3), 335–375. 10.1006/brln.1997.1882
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1882 [Google Scholar]
  81. Reuter-Lorenz, P., Stanczak, L., & Miller, A.
    (1999) Neural recruitment and cognitive aging: Two hemispheres are better than one, especially as you age. Psychological Science, 10, 494–500. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00195
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00195 [Google Scholar]
  82. Reuter-Lorenz, P., & Cappell, K.
    (2008) Neurocognitive aging and the compensation hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 177–182. 10.1111/j.1467‑8721.2008.00570.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00570.x [Google Scholar]
  83. Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., & Kuhl, P.
    (2005) Brain potentials to native and non-native speech contrasts in 7- and 11-month-old American infants. Developmental Science, 8, 162–172. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2005.00403.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00403.x [Google Scholar]
  84. Rochon, E., Waters, G., & Caplan, D.
    (2000) The relationship between measures of working memory and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 43(2), 395–413. 10.1044/jslhr.4302.395
    https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4302.395 [Google Scholar]
  85. Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E.
    (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928. 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 [Google Scholar]
  86. Saffran, J., Johnson, E., Aslin, R., & Newport, E.
    (1999) Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition, 70, 27–52. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00075‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00075-4 [Google Scholar]
  87. Samu, D., Campbell, K., Tsvetanov, K., Shafto, M., & Tyler, L.
    (2017) Preserved cognitive functions with age are determined by domain-dependent shifts in network responsivity. Nature Communications, 8, 14743. doi:  10.1038/ncomms14743
    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14743 [Google Scholar]
  88. Sebastián-Gallés, N., Echeverria, S., & Bosch, L.
    (2005) The influence of initial exposure on the lexical representations comparing early and simultaneous bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 240–255. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  89. Shafto, M., & Tyler, L.
    (2014) Language in the aging brain: The network dynamics of cognitive decline and preservation. Science, 346 (6209), 583–7. 10.1126/science.1254404
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254404 [Google Scholar]
  90. Skeide, M., & Friederici, A.
    (2016) The ontogeny of the cortical language network. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(5), 323–332. 10.1038/nrn.2016.23
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.23 [Google Scholar]
  91. Staron, M., Bokus, B., & Kail, M.
    (2005) On-line sentence processing in Polish children and adults. InB. Bokus (Ed.), Studies in the psychology of language (pp.227–245). Warsaw: Matrix.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Stern, Y.
    (2009) Cognitive reserve. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2015–2028. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  93. Stevens, K.
    (1960) Towards a model for speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32(1), 47–55. 10.1121/1.1907874
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907874 [Google Scholar]
  94. Stiles, J.
    (2001) Neural plasticity and cognitive development. Developmental Neuropsychology, 18(2), 237–272. 10.1207/S15326942DN1802_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN1802_5 [Google Scholar]
  95. Stiles, J., & Thal, D.
    (1993) Linguistic and spatial cognitive development following early brain injury: Patterns of deficit and recovery. InM. Johnson (Ed.), Brain development and cognition: A reader (pp.643–664). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Stiles, J., Brown, T., Haist, F., & Jernigan, T.
    (2015) Brain and cognitive development. InR. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp.9–62). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy202
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy202 [Google Scholar]
  97. Stine-Morrow, E., Miller, L., & Nevin, J.
    (1999) The effects of context and feedback on age differences in spoken word recognition. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 54B, 125–134. 10.1093/geronb/54B.2.P125
    https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/54B.2.P125 [Google Scholar]
  98. Thal, D., Marchman, V., Stiles, J., Aram, D., Trauner, D., Nass, R., & Bates, E.
    (1991) Early lexical development in children with focal brain injury. Brain and Language, 40, 491–527. 10.1016/0093‑934X(91)90145‑Q
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(91)90145-Q [Google Scholar]
  99. Thelen, E., & Smith, L.
    (1998) Dynamic Systems Theories. InW. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp.563–634). New York NY: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-tased theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Trueswell, J.
    (2008) Using eye movements as a developmental measure within psycholinguistics. InI. Sekerina, E. Fernandez, & H. Clahsen (Eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics. Online methods in children’s language processing (pp.73–96). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.44.05tru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.44.05tru [Google Scholar]
  102. van Geert, P.
    (2003) Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental processes. InJ. Valsiner & K. Conolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp.640–672). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Verhaegen, P., & Cerella, J.
    (2002) Aging, executive control and attention: a review of meta-analyses. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 26(7), 849–857. 10.1016/S0149‑7634(02)00071‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(02)00071-4 [Google Scholar]
  104. Vicari, S., Albertoni, A., Chilosi, A., Cipriani, P., Cioni, G., & Bates, E.
    (2000) Plasticity and reorganization during language development in children with early injury. Cortex, 36 (1), 31–46. 10.1016/S0010‑9452(08)70834‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70834-7 [Google Scholar]
  105. Waters, G., & Caplan, D.
    (2001) Age, working memory and on-line processing in sentence comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 16(1), 128–144. 10.1037/0882‑7974.16.1.128
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.16.1.128 [Google Scholar]
  106. (2004) Verbal working memory and on-line syntactic processing: Evidence from self-paced listening. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A(1), 129–163. 10.1080/02724980343000170
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000170 [Google Scholar]
  107. Werker, J., & Tees, R.
    (1984) Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavioral Development, 7, 49–63. 10.1016/S0163‑6383(84)80022‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80022-3 [Google Scholar]
  108. Wulfeck, B., Bates, E., & Capasso, R.
    (1991) A crosslinguistic study of grammaticality judgments in Broca’s aphasia. Brain and Language, 41, 311–336. 10.1016/0093‑934X(91)90158‑W
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(91)90158-W [Google Scholar]
  109. Wulfeck, B., Bates, E., Krupa-Kwiatowski, M., & Saltzman, D.
    (2004) Grammatical sensitivity inchildren with early focal brain injury and children with specific language impairment. Brain and Language, 88, 215–228. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00100‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00100-7 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lia.20016.kai
Loading

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error