Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:40:58.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing subject–verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2009

NORIKO HOSHINO ,
PAOLA E. DUSSIAS  and
JUDITH F. KROLL
NORIKO HOSHINO*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
PAOLA E. DUSSIAS
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
JUDITH F. KROLL
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
Address for correspondence: Noriko Hoshino, ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and Practice, Bangor University, Bangor Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UKn.hoshino@bangor.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subject–verb agreement is a computation that is often difficult to execute perfectly in the first language (L1) and even more difficult to produce skillfully in a second language (L2). In this study, we examine the way in which bilingual speakers complete sentence fragments in a manner that reflects access to both grammatical and conceptual number. In two experiments, we show that bilingual speakers are sensitive to both grammatical and conceptual number in the L1 and grammatical number agreement in the L2. However, only highly proficient bilinguals are also sensitive to conceptual number in the L2. The results suggest that the extent to which speakers are able to exploit conceptual information during speech planning depends on the level of language proficiency.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 87 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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 completed by the first author as a master's thesis under the direction of the second and third authors. The research reported in this paper was supported in part by NSF Grant BCS-0418071 and NIH Grant R01-HD053146 to Judith F. Kroll, by NIH Grant HD50629 and NSF Grant BCS-0821924 to Paola E. Dussias and by NSF Dissertation Grant BCS-0518814 to Noriko Hoshino and Judith F. Kroll. We thank James Burns, Natalie De Rosa, Mark Minnick, Judith Pirela and Raul Rios for research assistance. Preliminary results were presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, and the 4th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon.

References

Azuma, T. & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R. & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M. & Cutting, J. C. (2004). Producing number agreement: How pronouns equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J. & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A. & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is lexical selection language specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject–verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J. & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2006). Language production and working memory: The case of subject–verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Kolk, H. H. J. & Huinck, W. J. (1999). Agrammatic production of subject–verb agreement: The effect of conceptual number. Brain and Language, 69, 119–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasegawa, M., Carpenter, P. A. & Just, M. A. (2002). An fMRI study of bilingual sentence comprehension and workload. NeuroImage, 15, 647–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoshino, N., Dussias, P. E. & Kroll, J. F. (in preparation). Producing subject–verb agreement: Does L1 syntax influence L2 performance? Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotz, S. A. & Elston-Güttler, K. (2004). The role of proficiency on processing categorical and associative information in the L2 as revealed by reaction times and event-related potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, E. B. & Gollan, T. H. (2005). Being and becoming bilingual: Individual differences and consequences for language production. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 389–410. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miyake, A. & Friedman, N. F. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. (eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention, pp. 339–364. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. & Greth, D. (2003). Production of subject–verb agreement in Spanish as a second language. Experimental Psychology, 50, 196–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, J., Teller, M. & Greth, D. (2001). Production of verb agreement in monolingual, bilingual and second-language speakers. In Nicol, J. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 117–133. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 371–388. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silverberg, S. & Samuel, A. (2004). The effect of age of second language acquisition on the representation and processing of second language words. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. & Mensies, M. (2004). Subject–verb agreement in beginning L2 learners and fluent bilinguals. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society of America, Minneapolis, November 18–21.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, A. & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. & Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject–verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61, 261–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. & Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing subject–verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G. & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2002). The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 442–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jarema, G. & Kolk, H. H. J. (1996). One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 407–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G. & Zilli, T. (1999). Syntactic accuracy in sentence production: The case of gender disagreement in Italian language-impaired and unimpaired speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 623–648CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed