Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:28:56.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On-line sentence interpretation in Spanish–English bilinguals: What does it mean to be “in between”?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Arturo E. Hernandez ,
Elizabeth A. Bates  and
Luis X. Avila
Arturo E. Hernandez*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Elizabeth A. Bates
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Luis X. Avila
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Arturo Hernandez, Center for Research in Language, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0526
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates the real-time costs of sentence processing in early Spanish–English bilinguals. Our results indicate that bilinguals use an amalgam (a combination of L1 and L2 strategies) of monolingual strategies in choosing the agent of a sentence. The reaction time (RT) data, however, reveal a slightly larger language specific component than the choice data. That is, bilinguals appear to fall more “in between” the two monolingual groups in their choice profiles than in their RT profiles. This implies that early bilinguals may be paying a language-specific processing cost in order to maintain an “in between” profile. The nature of the bilingual/monolingual dichotomy and its implications for the study of bilingual language processing are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 417 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences conference on native and foreign language acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C. M., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., & Venza, V. (1984). A crosslinguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bavin, E., & Shopen, T. (1989). Cues to sentence interpretation in Walpiri. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burki-Cohen, J., Grosjean, F., & Miller, J. (1989). Base language effects on word identification in bilingual speech: Evidence from categorical perception experiments. Language and Speech, 32, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1992). The monolingual nature of speech segmentation by bilinguals. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 381–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. In Harris, R. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kail, M. (1989). Cue validity, cue cost, and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spanish. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1987). Sentence processing in a second language: Seeking a performance definition of fluency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1989). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech. 32, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1991). Selective impairment of grammatical morphology due to induced stress in normal listeners: Implications for aphasia. Brain and Language, 41 (2), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, P., Bates, E., Liu, H., & MacWhinney, B. (1992). Cues as functional constraints on sentence processing in Chinese. In Chen, H. C. & Tzeng, O. (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google 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. (1976). Hungarian research on the acquisition of morphology and syntax. Journal of Child Language, 3, 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1985). Hungarian language acquisition as an exemplification of a general model of grammatical development. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Osmán-Sági, J., & Slobin, D. (1991). Sentence comprehension in two clear case-marking languages. Brain and Language, 41, 234–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B., & Pléh, C. (1988). The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition, 29, 95–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B., Pléh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1989). The acquisition of cue-category mappings. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miao, X., Chen, G., & Ying, H. (1986). Sentence comprehension in Chinese. In Zhu, Man-Shu (Ed.), Studies in child language development. Shanghai.Google Scholar
Mimica, I., Sullivan, M., & Smith, S. (in press). A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in native Croatian speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1987). The assessment of bilingual aphasia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., & Tash, J. B. (1974). Reaction times to comparisons within and across phonetic categories. Perception and Psychophysics, 15, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G. (1975). The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, 25, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1960). New science of management decision. New York: Harper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D., & Bever, T. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S., & Mimica, I. (1984). Agrammatism in a case-inflected language: Comprehension of agent-object relations. Brain and Language, 21, 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokolov, J. (1989). Cue validity and the acquisition of Hebrew. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vaid, J., & Chengappa, S. (1988). Assigning linguistic roles: Sentence interpretation in normal and aphasic Kannada-English bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 3 (2), 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaid, J., & Pandit, R. (1991). Sentence interpretation in normal and aphasic Hindi speakers. Brain and Language, 41, 250–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Berger, E., Wulfeck, B., Bates, E., & Fink, N. (1993). Developmental changes in realtime sentence processing (Tech. Rept. No. 9201). La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Research in Language, Project in Cognitive Neurodevelopment.Google Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991, 04). Loss of a native language ability due to premature exposure to English. Address to the Society of Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Wulfeck, B., Juarez, L., Bates, E., & Kilborn, K. (1986). Sentence interpretation strategies in healthy and aphasic bilingual adults. In Vaid, J. (Ed.), Language processing in billinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar