Subject–Verb Number Agreement in Bilingual Processing: (Lack of) Age of Acquisition and Proficiency Effects

Abstract

Children acquire language more easily than adults, though it is controversial whether this faculty declines as a result of a critical period or something else. To address this question, we investigate the role of age of acquisition and proficiency on morphosyntactic processing in adult monolinguals and bilinguals. Spanish monolinguals and intermediate and advanced early and late bilinguals of Spanish read sentences with adjacent subject–verb number agreements and violations and chose one of four pictures. Eye-tracking data revealed that all groups were sensitive to the violations and attended more to more salient plural and preterit verbs than less obvious singular and present verbs, regardless of AoA and proficiency level. We conclude that the processing of adjacent SV agreement depends on perceptual salience and language use, rather than AoA or proficiency. These findings support usage-based theories of language acquisition.

The role of minority language bilingualism in spotting agreement attraction errors

“…Based on previous literature, we expect different findings regarding RQ I. While it is plausible to anticipate comparable attraction effects in both monolingual and bilingual/bidialectal participants [56][57][58][59], we can equally expect to find some differences in the rates bilingual and bidialectal individuals detect Subject-Verb agreement mismatches in comparison to monolinguals, due to the ongoing language monitoring involved in the bilingual experience [25,60]. Regarding RQ II, we predict that these differences may be modulated by factors related to language use practices [59],…”

“…Regarding Subject-Verb agreement attraction errors, Foote [57] found that attraction was modulated by proficiency (i.e., more proficient bilinguals showed fewer attraction effects). The roles of age of acquisition (AoA) and proficiency were examined by Sagarra and Rodriguez [58], who found that Spanish monolinguals and English-Spanish bilinguals showed similar sensitivity to agreement violations. In particular, the processing patterns of adjacent Subject-Verb agreement in terms of reading times, gaze duration, and accuracy were found to positively correlate with perceptual salience, defined as "the ability of a stimulus to stand out from the rest and to attract attention by virtue of physical characteristics" [58, p. 16], and with L1 and L2 patterns of use, rather than AoA or proficiency.…”

Being a heritage speaker matters: the role of markedness in subject-verb person agreement in Italian

“…The present study endeavors to move beyond descriptive comparison related to whether/how HSs perform compared to homeland L1-dominant counterparts ( Rothman et al, 2023 ). After all, there is little doubt that there will be aggregate-level differences in terms of accuracy rates and reading times (RTs), likely related, at least in part, to the many co-existing factors that pertain (more) to HL acquisition/processing, including (although not limited to) linguistic proficiency, levels of literacy, age of acquisition effects, the role of lexical frequency, language dominance, frequency of use, type of input, as well as socio-motivational and individual cognitive factors (among others De Houwer, 2011 ; Unsworth, 2016 ; Kupisch and Rothman, 2018 ; Lloyd-Smith et al, 2020 ; Bice and Kroll, 2021 ; Keating, 2022 ; Pereira Soares, 2022 ; Sagarra and Rodriguez, 2022 ; Goldin et al, 2023 ; Jegerski and Keating, 2023 ; Paradis, 2023 ). Rather we examine the extent to which linguistic features come to bear on how HSs process SV person agreement at the group and individual level, probing for and unpacking systematicities that explain the variability we expect HSs to display.…”

The role of minority language bilingualism in spotting agreement attraction errors: Evidence from Italian varieties

“…Regarding Subject-Verb agreement attraction errors, Foote [ 57 ] found that attraction was modulated by proficiency (i.e., more proficient bilinguals showed fewer attraction effects). The roles of age of acquisition (AoA) and proficiency were examined by Sagarra and Rodriguez [ 58 ], who found that Spanish monolinguals and English-Spanish bilinguals showed similar sensitivity to agreement violations. In particular, the processing patterns of adjacent Subject-Verb agreement in terms of reading times, gaze duration, and accuracy were found to positively correlate with perceptual salience, defined as “the ability of a stimulus to stand out from the rest and to attract attention by virtue of physical characteristics” [ 58 , p. 16], and with L1 and L2 patterns of use, rather than AoA or proficiency.…”

“…The roles of age of acquisition (AoA) and proficiency were examined by Sagarra and Rodriguez [ 58 ], who found that Spanish monolinguals and English-Spanish bilinguals showed similar sensitivity to agreement violations. In particular, the processing patterns of adjacent Subject-Verb agreement in terms of reading times, gaze duration, and accuracy were found to positively correlate with perceptual salience, defined as “the ability of a stimulus to stand out from the rest and to attract attention by virtue of physical characteristics” [ 58 , p. 16], and with L1 and L2 patterns of use, rather than AoA or proficiency. Similar rates of attraction for monolinguals and bilinguals were also reported by Lago and Felser [ 59 ], who compared German monolinguals and Turkish-German heritage speakers.…”