Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Most Cited Articles http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/18799272?TRACK=RSS Please follow the links to view the content. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor?TRACK=RSS The ‘Interface Hypothesis’ (IH) was put forward by Sorace and colleagues as an attempt to account for patterns of non-convergence and residual optionality found at very advanced stages of adult second (L2)acquisition. The IH originally proposed that language structures involving an interface between syntax and other cognitive domains are less likely to be acquired completely than structures that do not involve this interface. At the same time, the IH was extended to bilingual first language (L1) acquisition and to the very early stages of L1 attrition, which exhibit optionality in precisely the same structures: this provides a unifying framework for the study of bilingual language development. This paper selectively reviews the research on the IH, addressing some common misinterpretations and outlining the most recent interdisciplinary developments. Antonella Sorace Mon Feb 11 22:27:47 UTC 2013Z Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.1.3.01par?TRACK=RSS This study investigated how various child-internal and child-external factors predict English L2 children’s acquisition outcomes for vocabulary size and accuracy with verb morphology. The children who participated (N=169) were between 4;10 and 7;0 years old (mean = 5;10), had between 3 to 62 months of exposure to English (mean = 20 months), and were from newcomer families to Canada. Results showed that factors such as language aptitude (phonological short term memory and analytic reasoning), age, L1 typology, length of exposure to English, and richness of the child’s English environment were significant predictors of variation in children’s L2 outcomes. However, on balance, child-internal factors explained more of the variance in outcomes than child-external factors. Relevance of these findings for Usage-Based theory of language acquisition is discussed. Johanne Paradis Mon Feb 11 23:40:21 UTC 2013Z What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition?: A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.3.4.04put?TRACK=RSS Modeling the competence grammar of heritage speakers who exhibit low proficiency in their L1 represents a significant challenge for generative and experimental approaches to bilingual linguistic research. In this paper we revisit the core tenets of the incomplete acquisition hypothesis as developed in recent scholarship (in particular by Montrul (2002 et seq.) and Polinsky (1997, 2006)). Although we adopt many of these fundamental aspects of this research program, in this article we develop an alternative model that provides a more accurate depiction of the process that leads to what these scholars describe as the (later) effects of incomplete acquisition, thus improving the predictive power of this research program. Michael T. Putnam and Liliana Sánchez Fri Oct 11 16:01:10 UTC 2013Z Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab?TRACK=RSS This article reviews several recent studies suggesting that — contrary to a widespread belief — adult monolingual native speakers of the same language do not share the same mental grammar. The studies examined various aspects of linguistic knowledge, including inflectional morphology, passives, quantifiers, and more complex constructions with subordinate clauses. The findings suggest that, in some cases, language learners attend to different cues in the input and end up with different grammars; in others, some speakers extract only fairly specific, ‘local’ generalizations which apply to particular subclasses of items while others acquire more abstract rules which apply ‘across the board’. At least some of these differences are education-related: more educated speakers appear to acquire more general rules, possibly as a result of more varied linguistic experience. These findings have interesting consequences for research on bilingualism, particularly for research on ultimate attainment in second language acquisition, as well as important methodological implications for all language sciences. Ewa Dąbrowska Mon Feb 11 21:31:54 UTC 2013Z Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa?TRACK=RSS There is ample evidence that native speakers anticipate upcoming information at various levels during sentence comprehension. In contrast, some studies on late second-language (L2) learners support the view that L2 learners do not anticipate information during processing, or at least, not to the same extent as native speakers do. In the current paper, I propose that native and L2 speakers are underlyingly the same as far as sentence processing mechanisms are concerned, and that potential differences in anticipatory behavior can be accounted for by the same factors that drive individual differences in native speakers; in particular, differences in frequency biases, competing information, the accuracy and consistency of the lexical representation, and task-induced effects. Suggestions for future research are provided. Edith Kaan Tue May 27 16:20:46 UTC 2014Z Differential effects of internal and external factors on the development of vocabulary, tense morphology and morpho-syntax in successive bilingual children http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.1.3.05cho?TRACK=RSS The present study investigates the effects of child internal (age/time) and child external/environmental factors on the development of a wide range of language domains in successive bilingual (L2) Turkish-English children of homogeneously low SES. Forty-three L2 children were tested on standardized assessments examining the acquisition of vocabulary and morpho-syntax. The L2 children exhibited a differential acquisition of the various domains: they were better on the general comprehension of grammar and tense morphology and less accurate on the acquisition of vocabulary and (complex) morpho-syntax. Profile effects were confirmed by the differential effects of internal and external factors on the language domains. The development of vocabulary and complex syntax were affected by internal and external factors, whereas external factors had no contribution to the development of tense morphology. These results are discussed in light of previous studies on the impact of internal and external factors in child L2 acquisition. Vasiliki Chondrogianni and Theodoros Marinis Mon Feb 11 22:11:29 UTC 2013Z The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17058.sch?TRACK=RSS Research on second language acquisition and bilingual development strongly suggests that when a previously monolingual speaker becomes multilingual, the different languages do not exist in isolation: they are closely linked, dependent on each other, and there is constant interaction between these different knowledge systems. Theoretical frameworks of bilingual development acknowledge this insofar as they usually draw heavily on evidence of how the native language influences subsequent languages, and how and to what degree this influence can eventually be overcome. The fact that such crosslinguistic transfer is not a one-way street, and that the native language is similarly influenced by later learned languages, on the other hand, is often disregarded. We review the evidence on how later learned languages can re-shape the L1 in the immediate and the longer term and demonstrate how such phenomena may be used to inform, challenge and validate theoretical approaches of bilingual development. Monika S. Schmid and Barbara Köpke Mon Nov 13 16:05:06 UTC 2017Z Early, late or very late?: Timing acquisition and bilingualism http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.4.3.01tsi?TRACK=RSS Research on child bilingualism accounts for differences in the course and the outcomes of monolingual and different types of bilingual language acquisition primarily from two perspectives: age of onset of exposure to the language(s) and the role of the input (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004; Meisel, 2009; Unsworth et al., 2014). Some findings suggest that early successive bilingual children may pattern similarly to simultaneous bilingual children, passing through different trajectories from child L2 learners due to a later age of onset in the latter group. Studies on bilingual development have also shown that input quantity in bilingual acquisition is considerably reduced, i.e., in each of their two languages, bilingual children are likely exposed to much less input than their monolingual peers (Paradis & Genesee, 1996; Unsworth, 2013b). At the same time, simultaneous bilingual children develop and attain competence in the two languages, sometimes without even an attested age delay compared to monolingual children (Paradis, Genesee & Crago, 2011). The implication is that even half of the input suffices for early language development, at least with respect to ‘core’ aspects of language, in whatever way ‘core’ is defined.My aim in this article is to consider how an additional, linguistic variable interacts with age of onset and input in bilingual development, namely, the timing in L1 development of the phenomena examined in bilingual children’s performance. Specifically, I will consider timing differences attested in the monolingual development of features and structures, distinguishing between early, late or ‘very late’ acquired phenomena. I will then argue that this three-way distinction reflects differences in the role of narrow syntax: early phenomena are core, parametric and narrowly syntactic, in contrast to late and very late phenomena, which involve syntax-external or even language-external resources too. I explore the consequences of these timing differences in monolingual development for bilingual development. I will review some findings from early (V2 in Germanic, grammatical gender in Greek), late (passives) and very late (grammatical gender in Dutch) phenomena in the bilingual literature and argue that early phenomena can differentiate between simultaneous and (early) successive bilingualism with an advantage for the former group, while the other two reveal similarly (high or low) performance across bilingual groups, differentiating them from monolinguals. The paper proposes that questions about the role of age of onset and language input in early bilingual development can only be meaningfully addressed when the properties and timing of the phenomena under investigation are taken into account. Ianthi Maria Tsimpli Fri Aug 08 16:01:31 UTC 2014Z The role of language processing in language acquisition http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi?TRACK=RSS Language processing research is changing in two ways that should make it more relevant to the study of grammatical learning. First, grammatical phenomena are re-entering the psycholinguistic fray, and we have learned a lot in recent years about the real-time deployment of grammatical knowledge. Second, psycholinguistics is reaching more diverse populations, leading to much research on language processing in child and adult learners. We discuss three ways that language processing can be used to understand language acquisition. Level 1 approaches (“Processing in learners”) explore well-known phenomena from the adult psycholinguistic literature and document how they play out in learner populations (child learners, adult learners, bilinguals). Level 2 approaches (“Learning effects as processing effects”) use insights from adult psycholinguistics to understand the language proficiency of learners. We argue that a rich body of findings that have been attributed to the grammatical development of anaphora should instead be attributed to limitations in the learner’s language processing system. Level 3 approaches (“Explaining learning via processing”) use language processing to understand what it takes to successfully master the grammar of a language, and why different learner groups are more or less successful. We examine whether language processing may explain why some grammatical phenomena are mastered late in children but not in adult learners. We discuss the idea that children’s language learning prowess is directly caused by their processing limitations (‘less is more’: Newport, 1990). We conclude that the idea is unlikely to be correct in its original form, but that a variant of the idea has some promise (‘less is eventually more’). We lay out key research questions that need to be addressed in order to resolve the issues addressed in the paper. Colin Phillips and Lara Ehrenhofer Wed Dec 30 13:05:59 UTC 2015Z The impact of internal and external factors on linguistic performance in the home language and in L2 among Russian-Hebrew and Russian-German preschool children http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.1.3.04arm?TRACK=RSS This paper evaluates the contribution of external background factors which pertain to the child’s environment (e.g., parent education, parent occupation, family size, etc.), and internal ones which reflect the child’s time related experience with language (e.g., chronological age, age of L2 onset, etc.) to the development of linguistic skills in the two languages of bilingual children. 65 Russian-German (Mean age: 66mo, Range: 47-86mo) and 78 Russian-Israeli migrant children (Mean age: 70mo, Range: 58-81) with comparable mean length of L2 exposure (M=37mo) and family size (1.88 children) but different Socio-Economic Status (SES), were tested with a battery of language and their parents were interviewed.. Overall, internal, temporal, factors showed a stronger relationship to language measures than external, environmental, factors: age of L2 onset and length of L2 exposure correlated with L2, while parents’ education/occupation showed positive correlations with both L1 and L2 measures. In the Russian-German cohort, which had a sub-group with relatively lower SES, SES positively correlated with L1 success as well. Sharon Armon-Lotem, Joel Walters and Natalia Gagarina Mon Feb 11 23:14:30 UTC 2013Z