Cover not available
Part of
Sources of Variation in First Language Acquisition: Languages, contexts, and learners
Edited by Maya Hickmann †, Edy Veneziano and Harriet Jisa
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 22] 2018
► pp. 313–338

Chapter 15
Online sentence processing in simultaneous French/Swedish bilinguals

 | Laboratoire Structures Formelles du Langage, CNRS & Université Paris 8
 | Laboratoire Modèles, Dynamique, Corpus, Université Paris Nanterre & CNRS
 | Laboratoire de Psychologie et Neuropsychologie Cognitive, CNRS & Université Paris Descartes
Within the Competition Model, cue validity and cue cost can serve to make predictions about real-time sentence processing in a cross-linguistic perspective. Previous research with monolingual children and adults in French (Kail 2004) and Swedish (Kail et al. 2012) proposed that cue cost is determined by contextual and structural information, word order and morphology. On the basis of online grammaticality judgments, we investigated whether these cue cost constraints are equally efficient and follow the same hierarchy in simultaneous French/Swedish bilinguals and in their monolingual counterparts. Although bilinguals were slower and less accurate, the weight of each cue cost component was similar for both groups. Bilinguals’ longer detection times are linked to specific interactions between cue cost components not observed in monolinguals. This result is compatible with the cognitive cost implied by the need to inhibit the non-relevant language during bilingual processing.
Keywords: Competition Model, cue cost, online grammaticality judgment, simultaneous bilinguals, French, Swedish, bilingual processing, detection times
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Sentence processing in the Competition Model
  • 2.Selected characteristics of French and Swedish
    • 2.1Word order
      • French
      • Swedish
    • 2.2Verbal and nominal agreement
      • French
      • Swedish
  • 3.Main factors of cue cost
    • 3.1Violation Position: Early vs. late
    • 3.2Violation Span: Intraphrasal vs. interphrasal
    • 3.3Violation Type: Agreement vs. word order
  • 4.Previous results on cue cost in French and Swedish monolinguals
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Linguistic material
    • 5.3Experimental apparatus
  • 6.Cue cost in simultaneous French /Swedish bilinguals
    • 6.1Are simultaneous bilinguals less efficient than monolinguals?
      • 6.1.1Accuracy of online grammaticality judgments
      • 6.1.2Detection times
    • 6.2Similar patterns of cue cost in bilinguals and monolinguals
      • 6.2.1Contextual information: Violation Position (early vs. late)
        • French
        • Swedish
      • 6.2.2Structural information: Violation Span (intraphrasal vs. interphrasal)
        • French
        • Swedish
      • 6.2.3Violation Type (agreement vs. word order)
        • French
        • Swedish
    • 6.3Interactions of factors specific to bilinguals
      • 6.3.1Interaction of Violation Position and Violation Type in French
      • 6.3.2Interaction of Violation Position and Violation Span in Swedish
    • 6.4Specific cue cost hierarchies in bilinguals
  • 7.Discussion and concluding remarks
    • What global performances tell us about bilinguals
    • Cue cost factors in bilinguals and monolinguals
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 22 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.22.16kai
References (46)
References
Allen, S. 1971. Nusvensk Frekevensordbok2: Lemman (Frequency Dictionary of Present-Day Swedish 2). Stockholm: Almquist & Wikksell.Google Scholar
Ammon, M. & Slobin, D. I. 1979. A cross-linguistic study of the processing of causative sentences. Cognition 7: 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arrivé, M., Gadet, F. & Galmiche, M. 1986. La grammaire d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Devescovi, A. & Wulfeck, B. 2001. Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 369–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. 2005. The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(1): 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A., Bates, E. & Fisher, D. 1996. The time course of grammaticality judgement. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 337–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charvillat, A. & Kail, M. 1991. The status of canonical SVO sentences in French: A developmental study of the online processing of dislocated sentences. Journal of Child Language 18: 591–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M. & Provost, J. 1993. PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 25(2): 257–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, M. 2005. Processamento de frases em Portugues Europeu. Lisboa: Fundaçao Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. New York NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. 2005. Early bilingual acquisition. Focus on morphosyntax and the separate development hypothesis. In Handbook of Bilingualism. Psycholinguistic Approaches, J. Kroll & A.M.B. de Groot (eds), 30–48. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Devescovi, A. & D'Amico, S. 2005. The competition model: Crosslinguistic studies of online processing. In Beyond Nature-Nurture. Essays in Honor of Elizabeth Bates, M. Tomasello & D. I. Slobin (eds), 165–191. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Devescovi, A., D’Amico, S. & Gentille, P. 1999. The development of sentence comprehension in Italian: A reaction time study. First Language 19: 129–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E. 2001. Sentence parsing in fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. In One Mind, Two Languages. Bilingual Language Processing, J. L. Nicol (ed.), 159–176. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. 2002. An online look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia & Altarriba (eds), 217–236.Google Scholar
2005. Eye movement recording as a tool for studying processing in a second language. Second Language Research. 21: 175–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F. 2002. Portraits of the bilingual child. In Portraits of the L2 User, V. Cook (ed.), 167–178. Clevedon: Mulitilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. 1989. Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language 36: 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heredia R. R. & Altarriba, J. (eds). 2002. Bilingual Sentence Processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R. & Stewart, M. T. 2002. Online methods in bilingual spoken language research. In Heredia & Altarriba (eds), 7–30.Google Scholar
Jörgensen, N. 1976. Meningsbyggnaden i talad svenska. Funktion och byggnad [Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap], (Sentence Construction in Spoken Swedish. Function and Construction [Lund University Studies in Nordic Linguistics]). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Kail, M. 1989. Cue validity, cue cost, and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spanish. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (eds), 77–117. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1999. Linguistic variations and cognitive constraints in the processing and acquisition of language. In Language Diversity and Cognitive Representations [Human Cognitive Processing 3], C. Fuchs & S. Robert (eds), 179–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Online grammaticality judgments in French children and adults: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of Child Language 31: 713–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011a. Online sentence processing in children and adults: General and specific constraints. A crosslinguistic study in four languages In Comparative Perspectives to Language Acquisition: A Tribute to Clive Perdue, M. Watorek, S. Benazzo & M. Hickmann (eds), 586–612. Paris: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2011b. The study of early comprehension in language development: New methods, findings and issues. Language Interaction and Acquisition 2(1): 13–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Coût du traitement chez les sujets bilingues: Perspective développementale et comparative. In Nada na linguagem Ihe é estranho. homenagem a Isabel Hub Faria, A. Costa & I. Duarte (eds), 633–650. Porto: Ediçoes Afrontamento.Google Scholar
Kail, M. & Bassano, D. 1997. Verb agreement processing in French: A study of online grammaticality judgments. Language and Speech 40(1): 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kail, M. & Diakogiorgi, K. 1998. Online integration of morpho-syntactic cues by Greek children and adults: A crosslinguistic perspective. In Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition, N. Dittmar & Z. Penner (eds), 177–201. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kail, M., Costa, A. & Hub Faria, I. 2010. Online grammaticality judgments: A comparative study of French and Portuguese, In Language Acquisition across Linguistic and Cognitive Systems [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 52], M. Kail & M. Hickmann (eds), 179–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kail, M., Kihlstedt, M. & Bonnet, P. 2012. Online sentence processing in Swedish: Crosslinguistic developmental comparisons with French. Journal of Child Language 39(1): 28–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V. & MacWhinney, B. 1999. Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(2): 129–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilborn, K. 1989. Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech 32(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, L. & Kail, M. 2001. Le traitement en temps réel des marques morphologiques d'accord dans les phrases en français. L'Année Psychologique 101(4): 561–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, K. 2003. The development of sentence-interpretation strategies in monolingual German-learning children with and without specific language impairment. Linguistics 41: 213–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., Bates, E. & Li, P. 1992. Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics 13: 451–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 1987. The competition model. In Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, B. MacWhinney (ed.), 73–136. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds). 1989. The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat J-C. & Rioul, R. 1994. La grammaire méthodique du Français. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A., Fernandez, E. M. & Clahsen, H. (eds). 2008. Developmental Psycholinguistics. Online Methods in Children’s Language Processing [Language Acquisition and Language Disorderes 44]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staron, M., Bokus, B. & Kail, M. 2005. Online sentence processing in Polish children and adults. Studies in the Psychology of Language, B. Bokus (ed.), 227–245. Warsaw: Matrix.Google Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E. 1999. Svenska Akademins Grammatik (The Grammar of the Swedish Academy). Lund: Norstedts förlag.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W. E. & Rigault, A. A. 1977. The French Speaker’s Skill with Grammatical Gender. La Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. 2008. Using eye movements as a developmental measure within psycholinguistics. In Sekerina, Fernandez & Clahsen (eds), 73–96.Google Scholar
Wulfeck, B. 1993. A reaction time study of grammaticality judgments in children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36(6): 1208–1215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulfeck, B., Bates, E. & Capasso, R. 1991. A crosslinguistic study of grammaticality judgments in Broca's aphasia. Brain & Language 41: 311–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kail, Michèle
2021. Adaptive functions of neurobehavioral plasticity in language learning and processing. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 12:1 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.