Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33390660›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurolinguistics2021

Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals.

Kinsey Bice, Judith F Kroll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurolinguistics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kinsey BiceDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University.
Judith F KrollDepartment of Language Science, University of California, Irvine.

Funding

A new hypothesis about second language learningR21HD082796 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE · PI KROLL, JUDITH F. · 2015 to 2016
$422k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD082796
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies have demonstrated variation in language processing for monolingual and bilingual speakers alike, suggesting that only by considering individual differences will an accurate picture of the consequences of language experience be adequately understood. This approach can be illustrated in ERP research that has shown that sentence contexts that traditionally elicit a P600 component in response to a syntactic violation, elicit an N400 response for a subset of individuals. That result has been reported for monolingual speakers processing sentences in their L1 and also for bilinguals processing sentences in their L2. To date, no studies have compared variation in L1 and L2 ERP effects in the very same bilingual speakers. In the present paper, we do that by examining sentence processing in heritage bilinguals who acquired both languages from early childhood but for whom the L2 typically becomes the dominant language. Variation in ERPs produced by the non-dominant L1 and dominant L2 of heritage bilinguals was compared to variation found in monolingual L1 processing. The group-averaged results showed the smallest N400 and P600 responses in the native, but no longer dominant, L1 of heritage bilinguals, and largest in the monolinguals. Individual difference analyses linking ERP variation to working memory and language proficiency showed that working memory was the primary factor related to monolingual L1 processing, whereas bilinguals did not show this relationship. In contrast, proficiency was the primary factor related to ERP responses for no longer dominant L1 for bilinguals, but unrelated to monolingual L1 processing, whereas bilinguals' dominant L2 processing showed an intermediate relationship. Finally, the N400 was absent for bilinguals performing the task in the same language in which they initially learned to read, but significantly larger when bilinguals performed the task in the other language. The results support the idea that proficient bilinguals utilize the same underlying mechanisms to process both languages, although the factors that affect processing in each language may differ. More broadly, we find that bilingualism is an experience that opens the language system to perform fluidly under changing circumstances, such as increasing proficiency. In contrast, language processing in monolinguals was primarily related to relatively stable factors (working memory).

Indexed as

bilingualismERPsgrammatical processingheritage languageindividual differences

Identifiers

PMID33390660
PMCPMC7774644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.