Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T03:29:10.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What is the source of L1 attrition? The effect of recent L1 re-exposure on Spanish speakers under L1 attrition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2015

GLORIA CHAMORRO*
Affiliation:
University of Kent
ANTONELLA SORACE
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
PATRICK STURT
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
*
Address for correspondence: Gloria Chamorro University of KentDepartment of English Language and Linguistics RutherfordCollege CanterburyCT2 7NX. G.Chamorro@kent.ac.uk

Abstract

The recent hypothesis that L1 attrition affects the ability to process interface structures but not knowledge representations (Sorace, 2011) is tested by investigating the effects of recent L1 re-exposure on antecedent preferences for Spanish pronominal subjects, using offline judgements and online eye-tracking measures. Participants included a group of native Spanish speakers experiencing L1 attrition (‘attriters’), a second group of attriters exposed exclusively to Spanish before they were tested (‘re-exposed’), and a control group of Spanish monolinguals. The judgement data shows no significant differences between the groups. Moreover, the monolingual and re-exposed groups are not significantly different from each other in the eye-tracking data. The results of this novel manipulation indicate that attrition effects decrease due to L1 re-exposure, and that bilinguals are sensitive to input changes. Taken together, the findings suggest that attrition affects online sensitivity with interface structures rather than causing a permanent change in speakers’ L1 knowledge representations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This study was partly supported by the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. Special thanks to all the participants who took part in the study.

References

Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2002). Null vs. Overt Pronouns and the Topic-Focus Articulation in Spanish. Rivista di Linguistica, 14, 2.Google Scholar
Argyri, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7999.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language Linguistic Theory, 25, 657689.Google Scholar
Bini, M. (1993). La adquisición del italiano: más allá de las propiedades sintácticas del parámetro pro-drop. In Liceras, J.M. (ed.), La lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no nativos, pp. 126139. Ottawa: Dovehouse.Google Scholar
Bosch, P., Katz, G., & Umbach, C. (2007). The Non-Subject Bias of German Demonstrative Pronouns. In Schwarz-Friesel, M., Consten, M. & Knees, M. (eds.), Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference, pp. 145164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bosch, P., Rozario, T., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Demonstrative Pronouns and Personal Pronouns. German der vs. er. Proceedings of the Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2003: Workshop on the Computational Treatment of Anaphora, pp. 6168. Budapest.Google Scholar
Bosch, P., & Umbach, C. (2007). Reference Determination for Demonstrative Pronouns. In Bittner, D. & Gargarina, N. (eds.), Intersentential Pronominal Reference in Child and Adult Language, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48, pp. 3951.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2000). The emergence of the unmarked pronoun. In Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J. & Vikner, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, pp. 113142. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. (2002). The Processing of Italian Subject Pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Hernandez, M., Costa-Faidella, J., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2009). On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition, 113, 135149.Google Scholar
Featherstone, C. R., & Sturt, P. (2010). Because there was a cause for concern: an investigation into a word-specific prediction account of the implicit causality effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 315.Google Scholar
Fedele, E., & Kaiser, E. (2012). Comprehension of Anaphora and Cataphora in Italian: Comparing Null and Overt Pronouns. Poster presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing 2012 Conference, Riva del Garda – Italy.Google Scholar
Filiaci, F. (2010). Null and Overt Subject Biases in Spanish and Italian: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. In Borgonovo, C., Español-Echevarría, M. & Prévost, P. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 171182. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Filiaci, F., Sorace, A., & Carreiras, M. (2014). Anaphoric biases of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: a cross-linguistic comparison. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 825843.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 6781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: a psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 5378.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A., & Van Berkum, J. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445465.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2006). The development of the syntax–discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In Torrens, V. & Escobar, L. (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, pp. 371399. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2009). Selective deficits at the syntax–discourse interface: Evidence from the CEDEL2 corpus. In Snape, N., Leung, Y. I. & Sharwood-Smith, M. (eds.), Representational Deficits in SLA: Studies in Honor of Roger Hawkins, pp. 127166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margaza, P., & Bel, A. (2006). Null subjects at the syntax–pragmatics interface: Evidence from Spanish interlanguage of Greek speakers. In O’Brien, M. G., Shea, C. & Archibald, J. (eds.), Proceedings of GASLA 2006, pp. 8897. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Mendes, C., & Iribarren, I. C. (2007). Fixação do parâmetro do sujeito nulo na aquisição do português europeu por hispanofalantes. In Lobo, M. & Coutinho, M. A. (eds.), XXII Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística: Textos seleccionados, pp. 483498. Lisbon: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125142.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1993). Linguistic, psycholinguistic, and neurolinguistic aspects of ‘interference’ in bilingual speakers: The Activation Threshold Hypothesis. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 9, 133145.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Navarro, S. (2003). Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input? Journal of Child Language, 30, 371393.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951973.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. (2011). Pronominal objects in English-Italian and Spanish-Italian bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 127.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., & Paoli, S. (2004). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface: subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183205.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 133.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460477.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (2011). External interfaces and the notion of ‘default’. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 101103.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257277.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax–discourse interface in second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wilson, F., Keller, F., & Sorace, A. (2009). Antecedent preferences for anaphoric demonstratives in L2 German. In Chandlee, J., Franchini, M., Lord, S. & Rheiner, G. (eds.), Proceedings of Boston University Conference on Language Development 33, pp. 634645. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar