ArticleJournal of neurolinguistics2021
Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A mapping-knowledge-domain analysis of ERP research on language processing.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Does bilingualism come with linguistic costs? A meta-analytic review of the bilingual lexical deficit.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Pooled it
- The accent atlas: A geolocation-based assessment of nonnative accent familiarity and linguistic diversity.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Individual differences matter in heritage language bilingual processing: An electroencephalography (EEG) study of grammatical gender.Studies in second language acquisition · 2025Article
- The cognitive impacts of Chinese pinyin learning on English-speaking elementary students in a bilingual educational setting.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Being a heritage speaker matters: the role of markedness in subject-verb person agreement in Italian.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Good-enough processing, home language proficiency, cognitive skills, and task effects for Korean heritage speakers' sentence comprehension.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Use of the first-acquired language modulates pupil size in the processing of island constraint violations.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Practice beats age: co-activation shapes heritage speakers' lexical access more than age of onset.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Using self-paced reading in research with heritage speakers: a role for reading skill in the online processing of Spanish verb argument specifications.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Modulation of Cross-Language Activation During Bilingual Auditory Word Recognition: Effects of Language Experience but Not Competing Background Noise.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Research on bilingualism as discovery science.Brain and language · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.