Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:04:58.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-linguistic influence in L1 processing of morphosyntactic variation: Evidence from L2 learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2021

Pablo E. Requena Open the ORCID record for Pablo E. Requena [Opens in a new window]  and
Grant M. Berry
Pablo E. Requena*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at San Antonio
Grant M. Berry
Affiliation:
Villanova University
*
*Correspondence author. E-mail: pablo.requena@utsa.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study investigates cross-linguistic influence of second language (L2) learning on native language (L1) processing of morphosyntactic variation in proficient L2 learners immersed in their L1. Despite Spanish pre- and postverbal clitic pronoun positions being grammatical in complex verb phrases, preferences of use have been well attested in naturalistic language production. To examine whether those preferences obtain for comprehension in monolinguals, as well as how those preferences might be modulated by learning an L2 with fixed pronoun positions, we administered a self-paced reading experiment to 20 Spanish monolinguals as well as 22 proficient learners English (L1 Spanish). The results of a Bayesian mixed effects regression analysis suggest that preferences in production are echoed in comprehension—but only for the monolingual group. We find support for facilitation in the bilingual group precisely where both languages overlap, as well as evidence that bilinguals may not use clitic position as a reliable cue at all. We interpret the results as evidence that learning an L2 that lacks variation for a particular feature may lead to reduced sensitivity to that feature as a cue in an analogous L1 structure. We situate these results in an experience-based, shared-syntax account of language processing.

Keywords

cliticscomprehensioncross-linguistic influencelanguage processingmorphosyntactic variation
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 153 - 180
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Altenberg, E. P. (1991). Assessing first language vulnerability to attrition. In Seliger, H. & Vago, R. (Eds.), First language attrition (pp. 189–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, A., Bulkes, N., & Tanner, D. (2018). Quantificational cues modulate the processing of English subject-verb agreement by native Chinese speakers: An ERP study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 731–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. R., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcom, P. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence of L2 English on middle constructions in L1 French. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 168–192). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second-language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). On the effects of second language immersion on first language production. Acta Psychologica, 142, 402–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty-Martínez, A. L., & Dussias, P. E. (2017). Bilingual experience shapes language processing: Evidence from codeswitching. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 931–949.Google ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bice, K., & Kroll, J. F. (2015). Native language change during early stages of second language learning. NeuroReport, 26, 966–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blas Arroyo, J. L. (2008). The variable expression of future tense in Peninsular Spanish: The present (and future) of inflectional forms in the Spanish spoken in a bilingual region. Language Variation and Change, 20, 85–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Carlson, G., & Garnsey, S. M. (1989). Lexical projection and the interaction of syntax and semantics in parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 563–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouzouita, M. (2009). Modelling syntactic variation. Diálogo de La Lengua, 1, 1–25.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37, 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2010). New directions in sociolinguistic cognition. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 31–39.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., & Yeni-Komshian, G. H. (1974). Voice onset time in two French dialects. Journal of Phonetics, 2, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & Cognition, 27, 826–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cedden, G., & Aydın, Ö. (2017). Do non-native languages have an effect on word order processing in first language Turkish? International Journal of Bilingualism, 1367006917703454.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2012). Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2013). A novelty effect in phonetic drift of the native language. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 520–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevrot, J. P., Drager, K., & Foulkes, P. (2018). Sociolinguistic variation and cognitive science, Special issue of TopiCS in Cogntive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10. Google Scholar
Contemori, C. (2019). Changing comprehenders’ pronoun interpretations: Immediate and cumulative priming at the discourse level in L2 and native speakers of English. Second Language Research. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Contemori, C., & Tortajada, F. (2020). The use of social–communicative cues to interpret ambiguous pronouns: Bilingual adults differ from monolinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41, 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. (2003). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 1–18). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V., Iarossi, E., Stellakis, N., & Tokumaru, Y. (2003). Effects of the L2 on the syntactic processing of the L1. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (Vol. 3, pp. 193–233). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuetos, F. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, M. (1995). Analyzing syntactic variation with computer-based corpora: The case of modern Spanish clitic climbing. Hispania, 78, 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Río, D., López-Higes, R., & Martín-Aragoneses, M. T. (2012). Canonical word order and interference-based integration costs during sentence comprehension: The case of Spanish subject-and object-relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2108–2128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmet, T., & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 610–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Souza, R. A., & de Oliveira, C. S. F. (2017). Are bilingualism effects on the L1 byproducts of implicit knowledge? Evidence from two experimental tasks. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 25, 1685–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, A. J. (2014). The role of probabilistic cues in L2 processing: Verb bias in Spanish and English . State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 Learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2004). Parsing a first language like a second: The erosion of L1 parsing strategies in Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Beatty-Martínez, A. L., & Johns, M. A. (2019). What language experience tells us about cognition: Variable input and interactional contexts affect bilingual sentence processing. The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 467–484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English language Institute. (2001). MELICET—GCVR user’s manual. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.Google Scholar
Fernández-Ordoñez, I. (2012). Dialect areas and linguistic change: Pronominal paradigms in Ibero-Romance dialects from a cross-linguistic and social typology perspective. In de Vogelaer, G. & Seiler, G. (Eds.), The dialect laboratory: Dialects as testing ground for theories of language change (pp. 73–106). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Readers generalize adaptation to newly-encountered dialectal structures to other unfamiliar structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 28–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fricke, M., Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2016). Phonetic variation in bilingual speech: A lens for studying the production–comprehension link. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 110–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (Eds.) (1992). Language transfer in language learning: Revised edition (Vol. 5). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K. & Leal, T. (2016). Processing variable structures: Object clitics in native and L2 Spanish. Paper presented at the Sociolinguistic Variation and Language Processing Conference. Blacksburg, VA, Virginia Tech, March 31–April 2, 2016.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Goodrich, B., Gabry, J., & Vehtari, A. (2019). R-squared for Bayesian regression models. American Statistician, 73, 307–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodrich, B., Gabry, J., Ali, I., & Brilleman, S. (2018). Rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan. R package version 2.17. 4. URL, http://mc-stan.org Google Scholar
Guasch, M., Boada, R., Ferré, P., & Sánchez-Casas, R. (2013). NIM: A web-based Swiss army knife to select stimuli for psycholinguistic studies. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 765–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Dussias, P. E. (2016). Examining the relationship between comprehension and production processes in code-switched language. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 138–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’ estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrique, K. (2016). Variação linguística e processamento: Investigando o papel da distância entre sujeito e verbo na realização da concordância verbal variável no PB. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UFJF, Juiz de Fora.Google Scholar
Herd, W. J., Walden, R. L., Knight, W. L., & Alexander, S. N. (2015). Phonetic drift in a first language dominant environment. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 23, 060005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, A. E., Bates, E. A., & Avila, L. X. (1994). On-line sentence interpretation in Spanish–English bilinguals: What does it mean to be “in between”?. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15 (4), 417–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. (2014). The No-U-Turn sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 (1), 1593–1623.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2017). Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 96–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, H., Shin, J. A., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2018). Late bilinguals share syntax unsparingly between L1 and L2: Evidence from cross-linguistically similar and different constructions. Language Learning, 68, 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production? Acta Psychologica, 127, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakubowicz, C., & Nash, L. (2001). Functional categories and syntactic operations in (ab) normal language acquisition. Brain and Language, 77, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2003). Probing the effects of the L2 on the L1: A case study. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Effects of the Second Language on the First (pp. 81–102). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasparian, K., & Steinhauer, K. (2017). When the second language takes the lead: Neurocognitive processing changes in the first language of adult attriters. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, manuscript 389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2004). This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133 (3), 450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kayne, R. S. (1975). French syntax: The transformational cycle (Vol. 30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (1998). The state of L1 knowledge in foreign language learners. Word, 49 (3), 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Papp, T.. (2003). How to demonstrate the conceptual effect of L2 on L1? Methods and techniques. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Effects of the Second Language on the First (pp. 247–265). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1989). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer. Language and Speech, 32, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köpke, B. (2019). First language attrition: From bilingual to monolingual proficiency? In de Houver, A. & Ortega, L. (Eds), The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism (pp. 349–365). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind, and brain. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bogulski, C. A., & Valdés Kroff, J. R. (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 56, 229–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lastra, Y., & Butragueño, P. M. (2010). Futuro perifrástico y future morfológico en el corpus sociolingüístico de la Ciudad de México. Oralia, 13, 145–171.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20, 1507–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13 (4), 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loebell, H., & Bock, K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41, 791–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loudermilk, B. C. (2013). Cognitive mechanisms in the perception of sociolinguistic variation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (1999). Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 177–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M. C., & Thornton, R. (2009). When language comprehension reflects production constraints: Resolving ambiguities with the help of past experience. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1177–1186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKenzie, I. (2017). The rise and fall of proclisis in Old Spanish postprepositional infinitival clauses: A quantitative approach. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 94, 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1992). Transfer and competition in second language learning. Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals, 83, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2003). Linguistic diversity and object naming by non-native speakers of English. Bilingualism 6 (1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Li, P., Pavlenko, A., Zhu, H., & Ameel, E. (2015). Bidirectional lexical interaction in late immersed Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Volume 2. Psychological and biological models. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meijer, P. J. A., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2003). Building syntactic structures in speaking: A bilingual exploration. Experimental Psychology, 50, 184–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2011). Effects of cognate status on word comprehension in second language learners: An ERP investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1634–1647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morett, L. M., & MacWhinney, B. (2013). Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism, 16 (1), 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, J. (1988). Categoriality and clustering. Studies in Language, 12, 261–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namjoshi, J., Tremblay, A., Spinelli, E., Broersma, M., Martínez-García, M. T., Connell, K., … Kim, S. (2015). Speech segmentation is adaptive even in adulthood: Role of the linguistic environment. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Paper no. 0676). Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, N. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 62–85. <AQ14>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, J. M., Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Putting lexical constraints in context into the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 107, 850–903. <AQ14>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, C. S. F., de Souza, R. A., & Oliveira, F. L.P. (2017). Bilingualism effects on L1 representation and processing of argument structure. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 1, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Cuza, A., & Thomas, D. (2011). Clitic placement in Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prévost, P. (2006). The phenomenon of object omission in child L2 French. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Version: 3.6.3. URL. https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of memory and language, 57 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Requena, P. E. (2015). Direct object clitic placement preferences in Argentine child Spanish. State College, PA: Pennylvania State University.Google Scholar
Requena, P. E. (2020). A Usage-Based Perspective on Spanish Variable Clitic Placement. Languages, 5, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Requena, P. E., & Dracos, M. (2018). Impermeability of L1 syntax: Spanish variable clitic placement in bilingual children. In Bertolini, A. B. & Kaplan, M. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 644–658). Somerville, MA: Cascaldilla Press.Google Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossi, E., Diaz, M., Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2017). Late bilinguals are sensitive to unique aspects of second language processing: Evidence from clitic pronouns word-order. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2007). The representation of grammatical gender in the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from Greek and German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D. (1988). Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Newmeyer, F. J. (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey: Vol. IV. Language: The Socio-cultural context (pp. 140–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. S. (2010). Languages at play: The relevance of L1 attrition to the study of bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. S., & Köpke, B. (2019). The Oxford handbook of language attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schuhmann, K. S., & Huffman, M. K. (2015). L1 drift and L2 category formation in second language learning. In the Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Paper no. 0850). Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. A., & Torres Cacoullos, R. (2014). Competing constraints on the variable placement of direct object clitics in Mexico City Spanish. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 514–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, M. J. (2011). Variación variable. Sevilla: Editorial Círculo Rojo.Google Scholar
Shin, J. A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntactic processing in Korean–English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition, 112, 175–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, N. L., Requena, P. E., & Kemp, A. (2017). Bilingual and monolingual children’s patterns of syntactic variation: Variable clitic placement in Spanish. In Auza Benavides, A. & Schwartz, R. G. (Eds.), Language development and disorders in Spanish-speaking children (pp. 63–88). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S., & Malt, B. (2003). Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 563–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spies, T. G., Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Garza, T., & Huerta, M. (2018). The effects of developing English language and literacy on Spanish reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 111, 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, L. (2014). Social differences in the processing of grammatical variation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 20, 20.Google Scholar
Su, I. R. (2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22 (1), 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M. (1980). Clitic promotion in Spanish revisited (pp. 300–330). Bloomington, IN: University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Valdés Kroff, J. R. V., Dussias, P. E., Gerfen, C., Perrotti, L., & Bajo, M. T. (2017). Experience with code-switching modulates the use of grammatical gender during sentence processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 163–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780–789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27, 1413–1432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, James A. (2010). Variation in linguistic systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp. 95–188). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whelan, R. (2008). Effective analysis of reaction time data. Psychological Record, 58, 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar