International Journal of Bilingualism

Barking, Marie; Mos, Maria; Backus, Ad

doi: 10.1177/13670069211052517pmid: N/A

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions:This study compares transfer from Dutch to German by native Dutch speakers who learned German as a second language (forward transfer: L1 to L2) and by native German speakers who are living in the Netherlands (reverse transfer: L2 to L1). The aim of this comparison is to see whether both groups experience the same kind of transfer (i.e., transferring the Dutch preference for prepositional phrases in the postfield position to German) and whether the extent of transfer depends on their language use.Design/methodology/approach:We compiled a corpus (2,908,154 words) consisting of German e-mails written by native Dutch speakers (n = 21) and native German speakers living in the Netherlands (n = 9). In addition, speakers filled in the BLP (bilingual language profile) test.Data and analysis:The corpus was analyzed for the speakers’ placement of prepositional phrases, and we linked their answers on the BLP test to their language use in the corpus data.Findings/conclusions:Our data show that the native Dutch speakers use the postfield position more frequently in their German than the native German speakers do. Besides, for both groups, the postfield use was related to the speakers’ use of Dutch as well as German varieties that are influenced by Dutch.Originality:This study directly compares forward and reverse transfer using a large corpus of written German texts, and it links both types of transfer to the speakers’ language use. In doing so, the study shows that the mechanism of entrenchment is likely to underlie transfer in both cases.Significance/implications:The results of this study are in line with a usage-based approach: there is extensive individual variation between speakers regarding their extent of transfer, which partly can be attributed to the speakers’ language use, both in the case of forward and reverse transfer.

Andras, Filip; Rivera, Marta; Bajo, Teresa; Dussias, Paola E; Paolieri, Daniela

doi: 10.1177/13670069211033359pmid: N/A

Aims and Objectives:The cognate facilitation effect (CFE) is a robust effect in language production and visual word comprehension, but evidence for CFE during auditory comprehension is still scarce. This study aimed to explore the CFE during auditory comprehension of a second language (L2) while manipulating proficiency in the L2 and cognate type. These two variables are known to influence the CFE.Methodology:Low and highly proficient Spanish–English bilinguals listened to individual words in their L2, English, that shared high, low, and no phonological overlap (PO) with their native language Spanish. We designed a visual world paradigm task that consisted of selecting an image shown as a spoken word unfolded in time while eye movements were recorded.Data and Analysis:Response times revealed a clear CFE in low proficiency bilinguals, while this effect was absent in highly proficient bilinguals. The eye-tracking (ET) data showed late coactivation of low-PO words and, surprisingly, no coactivation of high-PO words in low proficiency bilinguals. Highly proficient bilinguals showed no clear pattern of language coactivation in the ET data. The English monolingual control group showed no effects during the critical time window.Conclusions:These results are interpreted within the framework of L2 processing models. At low levels of proficiency, the PO between translations facilitates access to meaning. On the other hand, highly proficient bilinguals no longer benefit from the PO between translations, at least for concrete and simple nouns.Originality:The findings demonstrate a clear CFE in auditory comprehension. Proficiency in L2 and PO modulated the effect, as shown in both the response time and in the ET data, respectively.Implications:These findings suggest that at low levels of L2 proficiency, learners more easily access the conceptual information if the auditory input is similar to their native language. Nevertheless, as proficiency increases, this facilitation disappears.

Degirmenci, Merve Gul; Grossmann, Judith Alina; Meyer, Patric; Teichmann, Birgit

doi: 10.1177/13670069211051291pmid: N/A

Aims and Objectives:Bilinguals have been claimed to develop superior executive functioning compared to monolinguals due to their continuous experience of controlling two languages. Given the developmental trajectory of executive functions, a bilingual advantage could be more pronounced at an advanced age. To gain a clearer understanding, we reviewed the effect of bilingualism executive functions in healthy older adults.Methodology:The present paper systematically examines the methods and the results of 24 studies from 22 articles comparing healthy older monolinguals and bilinguals in at least one domain of executive functions.Data and Analysis:Data of each study were extracted for sample characteristics, country, language background and measures, controlled confounders and task paradigms. Study quality was also calculated for each study.Findings and Conclusions:In general, nine out of the 24 studies fully supported the notion of a bilingual advantage. Four studies showed a bilingual disadvantage. The rest of the studies challenged the existence of a bilingual advantage, as neither full support for bilingual advantages nor bilingual disadvantages were seen in various domains. The available data did not clearly support the widespread notion that bilingualism is related to a general advantage in executive control. However, when looking at the domains of executive functions separately, bilingualism was reliably associated with an advantage in inhibition, especially in two commonly applied tasks: the Stroop test and the Simon task.Originality:This is the first systematic review aimed at exploring the link between bilingualism and executive functions in healthy older adults.Significance/Implications:Heterogeneity in study characteristics and control of confounding variables may partially explain some of the inconsistencies found between studies. Therefore, well-designed studies that measure all core domains of executive functions and consider confounding variables are urgently needed.

Chen, Xiaoli; Li, Degao; Wang, Xiaolu

doi: 10.1177/13670069211056128pmid: N/A

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions:Irony comprehension can be more demanding than literal comprehension in L1. This study aimed to seek an answer to how bilinguals perform in L2 in irony comprehension.Design/methodology/approach:Totally, 85 Uighur College students participated in a self-paced reading task in Chinese, with 81 Chinese native speakers as the controls. In Experiment 1, a scenario was followed by a commentary statement in which the critical word either was literally congruent with the context in meaning or could only be ironically understood. In Experiment 2, the same statement was preceded by three sentences which were either literally consistent with the critical word or created a context for the critical word to be understood ironically.Data and analysis:ANOVAs were conducted on participants reading times (RTs) to the critical words and commentary statement endings in the 14 pairs of discourses. They did not have different RTs for the critical words across the ironic and non-ironic conditions in L1, but had significantly longer RTs in the ironic condition than in the non-ironic condition in L2. Their RTs for the commentary statement endings were significantly longer in the ironic condition than in the non-ironic condition in both experiments, regardless of whether the materials were presented in L1 or L2.Findings/conclusions:Irony comprehension is similar in L2 to how it is in L1. However, salient meaning retrieval (in Experiment 1) and inference-making (in Experiment 2) in irony comprehension, as assumed by the Graded Salience Hypothesis, were more likely to be revealed in L2 than in L1.Originality:This seems to be the first study in the native and non-native domain of irony processing in the procedure of discourse reading.Significance/implications:L2 learners should do as many practices as possible to improve their reading proficiency in the target language.

Kolb, Nadine; Mitrofanova, Natalia; Westergaard, Marit

doi: 10.1177/13670069211054891pmid: N/A

Aims and objectives:This empirical study investigates variables affecting crosslinguistic influence (CLI) in child third language (L3) acquisition. We examine whether structural or typological similarity leads to CLI from one or both of the previously acquired languages at later stages of acquisition.Design/methodology:We compare Russian-German heritage bilinguals acquiring L3 English to L2 English learners with either L1 German or L1 Russian (matched in age, proficiency, age of onset, length of exposure), which allows us to assess whether CLI obtains from one language or both. We carried out an acceptability judgment task: Two of the structures under investigation in English are structurally similar to German (subject-auxiliary inversion, determiner use) and two to Russian (adverb placement, non-subject-initial declaratives).Data and analysis:We tested 10- to 12-year-old L3 learners (n = 66), L2 learners with L1 Russian (n = 26), and L1 German (n = 33). The L3 learners were tested in both previously acquired languages.Findings/conclusions:Our findings suggest that structural proximity may override typological similarity at later stages and indicate that CLI obtains cumulatively from both languages. We found facilitative and non-facilitative CLI from Russian and German. For properties that are structurally similar in English and Russian, the L3 learners outperformed the L2 learners with L1 German and were outperformed by the L2 learners with L1 Russian, and vice versa for properties similar in English and German.Originality:Our research adds child L3 data to the current debate on whether morpho-syntactic properties from previously acquired languages are transferred wholesale or property by property, based on typological primacy or linguistic proximity.Significance:Previous research has shown that surface typological similarity is an important factor at early stages of acquisition. Our study investigates whether structural similarity can override this strong factor at later stages of child L3 acquisition.

Sánchez Calderón, Silvia; Fernández Fuertes, Raquel

doi: 10.1177/13670069211056740pmid: N/A

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions:We examine the acquisition of English active and passive monotransitives by English–Spanish bilingual children. These data are compared to English monolinguals from previous studies. We explore whether bi- and monolinguals show similar onset patterns given the shared grammatical properties of actives in the bilinguals’ two languages, and whether they differ in the onset of passives given the grammatical properties in English (canonical determiner phrase [DP]-movement) and Spanish (canonical DP-movement and se-passives). We also investigate the role played by adult input in child output.Design/methodology/approach:We analyze the spontaneous production data from eight English–Spanish bilinguals (ages: 1;01–6;11), and the adults who interact with them.Data and analysis:We perform a double analysis: (1) the onset of these structures in the spontaneous production of bilinguals to determine whether emergence patterns differ from those of monolinguals and (2) their incidence through language development to focus on production frequency.Findings/conclusions:Bilinguals start producing passives at the age of 3, later than actives that emerge at the age of 2, akin to English monolinguals. This acquisition order effect is also seen in the lower incidence of passives when compared to actives in the two child groups. The distributional properties of the two passive types do not seem to have interfered in the bilinguals’ acquisition of the English passive type, causing delay. These data suggest that the emergence and the incidence of the two constructions in bi- and monolinguals could be explained by the DP-movement maturation and/or adult input effects given the adults’ lower frequency of exposure to passives with respect to actives.Originality:This is the first study that addresses bilingual acquisition data and compares child output to adult input.Significance/implications:It contributes to elucidate how the bilinguals’ two languages interact in the acquisition and incidence of English actives and passives.