Chapter published in:
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
Published online: 22 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.22.16kai
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E.
2005 The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(1): 3–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A., Bates, E. & Fisher, D.
1996 The time course of grammaticality judgement. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 337–406. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Online grammaticality judgments in French children and adults: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of Child Language 31: 713–737. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V. & MacWhinney, B.
1999 Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(2): 129–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilborn, K.
1989 Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech 32(1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., Bates, E. & Li, P.
1992 Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics 13: 451–484. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulfeck, B., Bates, E. & Capasso, R.
1991 A crosslinguistic study of grammaticality judgments in Broca's aphasia. Brain & Language 41: 311–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. 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.