1. Focus of this talk
VARIATION IN ANAPHORIC • Variation due to the interplay of linguistic
EXPRESSIONS IN EARLY AND and general cognitive factors in
bilingualism.
LATE BILINGUALISM
• Division of labour between language and
other cognitive faculties in different
Antonella Sorace
structures.
University of Edinburgh
antonella@ling.ed.ac.uk
ExAPP 2013, Copenhagen, 20 March 2013
1
2
The Interface Hypothesis Computational complexity: a
graded continuum?
• In early bilinguals, advanced L2 speakers,
and L1 speakers under attrition, language • Structures may be complex for a variety of
properties at the interfaces between linguistic and non-linguistic reasons.
grammar and pragmatics present
significantly more variation than properties
less affected by contextual conditions.
• Interfaces = computational complexity
(Sorace 2011; Hopp 2011)
3
4
Different structures, different
Anaphora resolution in Italian
forms of cognitive control
• One possibility is that different kinds of • Italian allows both the expression and the
omission of subject pronouns
cognitive operations are involved.
(1)
E partito.
• Processing extra-syntactic information
consumes more resources that
Is gone
morphosyntactic processing.
• The choice of a null or overt subject is conditioned
by pragmatic factors such as and topicality.
• Morphosyntactic processing relies on more
proceduralized mechanisms (Avrutin 2006;
(2)
Giannii ha salutato Pietrok quando proi / lui*i/k/j è
Ullman 2006).
arrivato.
5
Gianni greeted Pietro when pro / he arrived.
6
1

2. Anaphora resolution in bilingual (Mis)interpretation of overt pronominal
speakers of null-subject languages
subjects in anaphora
Different bilingual groups
• Bilingual Italian speakers may interpret the overt
– advanced L2 speakers of Italian (both with English and pronominal subject of the embedded clause as as
another null subject language as L1);
coreferential with the lexical subject of the main
– attrited L1 speakers of Italian
clause:
– bilingual Italian-English children (both with English and
Spanish as L1s)
overextend the scope of overt subject pronoun (Belletti et (2)
a. La vecchietta saluta la ragazza quando pro i/?j
attraversa la strada.
al. 2007; Sorace Filiaci 2006; Tsimpli, Sorace,
Heycock Filiaci 2004; Sorace et al 2009)
b. La vecchietta saluta la ragazza quando leii/j attraversa
E.g. (3)
Mario non vede Luigi da quando lui si è sposato
la strada.
Mario hasn t seen Luigi since he got married
The old woman greets the girl when pro/she crosses the
road .
But: they do so to different degrees.
7
8
Weaker biases for overt pronouns
Anaphora resolution in German
in adult monolingual Italians
• Convergence between L2 acquisition and L1 • Native Italian speakers have weaker antecedent
attrition also found for German pronouns (er, sie, preferences for overt pronouns than for null
es) and demonstratives (der, die, das) as anaphoric pronouns, especially in non-ambiguous contexts
forms (Wilson et al 2010, submitted).
(Carminati 2002, 2006).
• In both German L2ers and L1 attriters, the
DEMONSTRATIVE form is overextended to
contexts in which the PRONOUN would be
appropriate.
(3) Der Kellner begrüβt den Kassierer. Der ist offensichtlich sehr nett
The waiter greets the cashier. He is apparently very nice.
9
10
Division of labour between null and overt Flexibility of overt pronouns in
subject pronouns unambiguous contexts
AMBIGUOUS CONTEXT (two plausible antecedents)
The Position of Antecedent Strategy (PAS):
In intersentential anaphoric contexts, (4) Marta scriveva spesso a Piera quando ∅ / lei era in vacanza (lei=Maria)
M. wrote frequently to P. when ∅ / she was on holiday
• null pronouns have a strong preference for the
antecedent in subject position. UNAMBIGUOUS CONTEXT (one plausible antecedent)
• overt pronouns have a weaker preference for an
antecedent in non-subject position. (5) Gianni ha detto che ø / lui andrà al matrimonio di Maria. (lui=Gianni)
G. has said that ø / he will go to the wedding of Maria
(Carminati 2002, 2005; Alonso-Ovalle et al. 2005) • An overt pronoun in (5) is more acceptable/less costly
in processing and more likely to be produced than in
(4) for adult native speakers.
11
12
12
2

3. The Form Specific Multiple Constraints
German anaphora
Approach
• Personal pronouns
• In German, like in Italian, the division of – prefer subject antecedents
labour between the two anaphoric forms is
-- syntactic dependency
more visible in semantically unbiased,
potentially ambiguous contexts (Bosch • Demonstrative pronouns
Umbach 2007).
– prefer non-topics
• If there are no competing referents, the  discourse dependency
demonstrative can refer to subject
antecedents, although it tends to avoid (Kaiser Trueswell 2008)
discourse topics.
13
14
A linguistic explanation:
Bilingual extension of the
underspecification of pragmatic
marked form
feature mappings (Tsimpli et el. 2004)
• In both Italian and German, the marked /
less frequent form is voided of its specific • The monolingual Italian grammar:
features and extended by bilinguals to the
OVERT = [+TS]
domain of the other form.
NULL = [-TS]
• The L2 near-native / L1 attrited Italian
grammar:
OVERT = [+TS]
OVERT = [-TS]
15
NULL = [-TS]
16
Underspecification as a common account
for bilinguals
Apparent crosslinguistic effects
• Developmental , residual and emerging • The language that has the least restrictive option
optionality involve bleaching of interface affects the other (regardless of whether it is L1 or
pragmatic conditions on the marked anaphoric L2), but not vice versa.
form.
• L1 attrition involves neutralization of L1
• An interface feature ( +Topic Shift ) that is distinctions towards the less restrictive L2 system.
specified in L2 (L1) remains (becomes) • L2 acquisition may present neutralization of L2
underspecified.
distinctions towards the less restrictive L1 system.
• In some bilingual language combinations, this (PREDICTION: no Italian - English effects on subject
phenomenon may appear to be due to the absence pronouns (either in L1 or L2) leading to null subjects in
of a similar condition in L1 (L2) in the same English)
syntactic context.
17
18
18
3

4. But this isn’t the whole Two null subject languages: L2
story….
and L3 acquisition data
• The overuse of overt pronouns is also Overt pronouns overextended:
• L1 Spanish -L2 Italian (Bini 1993)
attested in the second language of • L1 Greek -L2 Spanish (Malgaza Bel 2006)
bilingual speakers of two null subject • L1 Greek – L2 Spanish (Lozano 2007)
languages of the same type.
• L1 Spanish - L2 European Portuguese (Mendes Iribarren
2007)
• (WARNING: see Filiaci, Sorace • 2L1 Italian-Spanish (Sorace et al. 2009).
Carreiras, submitted, for a comparison of Overt pronouns NOT overextended:
Italian and Spanish showing differences in • L1 Croatian – L3 Italian (Kras 2008)
the distribution of pronominal forms).
• L1 Spanish – L3 Brazilian Portuguese (Montrul et al.
2008)
19
19
20
Another case of convergence: bilingual
children Results for subject pronouns
(Serratrice et al., 2009; Sorace et al. 2009)
• Two interfaces: syntax-semantics (specificity vs genericity • No effect of language combination
in bare nominals; focus and object pronouns) and syntax- • Both I-E and I-S bilinguals accept overt
discourse (null vs. overt subject pronouns).
subject pronouns in [-TS] null subject
• Large group (N=167) of older bilingual children: age
ranges 6-8 and 9-10.
pronoun contexts (Paperinoi ha detto che
• Two language combinations:
luii è caduto ‘Donald Ducki said that hei
– Italian-Spanish
fell’).
– Italian -English
• Two acquisition settings for English-Italian bilinguals: UK
and Italy.
• Monolingual child and adult controls.
21
22
A different pattern for structures Revisiting the syntax-pragmatics problem:
involving the syntax-semantics interface
not just crosslinguistic influence
• Only I-E children accept generic bare • Structures requiring the integration of syntactic
nominals in Italian (*Elefanti non volano knowledge and pragmatic information are
computationally more demanding.
‘Elephants don’t fly)
• Near-native L2 speakers, FLAt speakers, and other
• Only I-E children accept postverbal object bilinguals may have inconsistent but persisting
pronouns in unfocused contexts (Che cosa problems in integrating grammar and pragmatics
ha fatto Paperina a Minnie? *Ha efficiently in real time.
• A general effect of bilingualism?
abbracciato lei ‘What did Daisy do to
Minnie? She hugged her).
• I-S children do NOT accept these structures.
23 24
24
4

5. Default forms?
A test: attrition and recent L1
exposure (Chamorro 2012)
• Overt pronouns and demonstratives may • L1 Spanish attrited speakers show
function as a ‘default’ form that both inconsistency when using and interpreting
monolinguals and bilinguals use (to subject pronouns.
different extents) to compensate for • Are these attrition effects sensitive to recent
occasional inefficiency in computing exposure to a Spanish-speaking
syntax-pragmatics mappings.
environment? Do they decrease/disappear?
• If so, knowledge representations are
unaffected by attrition.
25
25
26
Chamorro (2012)
So what’s the bilingual problem?
• 24 ‘monolinguals’, 24 ‘attriters’, and 24 ‘exposed’, all with
L1 Spanish.
• Monolinguals had just arrived to the UK and had very little • Bilinguals resort to default forms more
knowledge of English.
often than monolinguals.
• Attriters had been residing in the UK for a minimum of 5
years and were advanced speakers of English.
• Is this related to the processing of anaphora
• Exposed were attriters who had been exposed exclusively resolution in real time? If so, to what stage
to Spanish in Spain for a minimum of a week just before of processing?
they were tested.
• We have addressed this question in a visual
• Results: the antecedent preferences for overt pronouns
of exposed speakers are intermediate between eye-tracking study on older bilingual
monolinguals and attriters.
children.
27
28
Referential preferences over time: Experiment 1: ambiguous sentences
on-line evidence from eye-tracking
(Serratrice Sorace, in prep.)
• Null pronoun condition
• Participants
La nonna saluta la ragazza in cucina mentre __ apre con calma
– Age groups:
la porta.
• 6- to 8-year-olds; 8- to 10-year-olds
The grandma says good-bye to the girl in the kitchen while (she)
– Language background:
calmly opens the door
• 31 monolingual Italian children (Italy)
• 35 Spanish-Italian bilinguals (Spain)
• 32 Italian-English bilinguals (Italy)
• Overt pronoun condition
– Bilinguals:
Il contadino incontra il prete alla fattoria mentre lui accarezza
• Regular exposure to both languages (0-2 years onset)
con curiosità un coniglio.
• Italian/English as medium of instruction
The farmer meets the priest at the farm while he strokes with
curiosity a rabbit
5

6. Il contadino (L) incontra il prete (R) alla fattoria
(Top) mentre lui accarezza con curiosità un
coniglio.
Questions
A) Are there overall differences in the interpretation of null
and overt pronouns?
– Do overt pronouns incur a processing penalty?
B) Are there differences between monolinguals and
bilinguals?
– In the interpretation of null pronouns
– In the interpretation of overt pronouns?
C) Does language combination make a difference?
Italian – Null subjects
Spanish – Null subjects
Monolinguals
Italian-Spanish bilinguals
Italian-English bilinguals
Monolinguals
Italian-Spanish bilinguals
1
1
0.8
0.8
1
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
null target
null target
0.4
0.4
null target
null target
null target
null competitor
null competitor
0.4
0.4
0.4
null null 0.2
0.2
null
0.2
competitor
0.2
competitor
0.2
competitor
0
0
0
f0
f200
f400
f600
f800
f1000
f1200
f1400
f1600
f1800
f2000
f2200
f2400
f2600
f2800
f3000
f0
f200
f400
f600
f800
f1000
f1200
f1400
f1600
f1800
f2000
f2200
f2400
f2600
f2800
f3000
0
0
f0
f400
f800
f1200
f1600
f2000
f2400
f2800
f0
f400
f800
f1200
f1600
f2000
f2400
f2800
f0
f400
f800
f1200
f1600
f2000
f2400
f2800
Are there differences between monolinguals
and bilinguals in the interpretation of null Italian – Overt subjects
pronouns?
Monolinguals
Italian-Spanish bilinguals
Italian-English bilinguals
• No differences across groups for the
younger children, they all start to fixate on
the target 800ms after verb onset.
• No significant effect of the number of 1
1
1
languages and of the combination of 0.8
0.8
0.8
languages.
0.6
0.6
0.6
overt target
overt target
overt target
• For the older children, only the Spanish- 0.4
overt
0.4
overt
0.4
overt
Italian bilinguals look more at the target, but 0.2
competior
0.2
competitor
0.2
competitor
only 1600ms after verb onset.
0
0
0
f0
f400
f800
f1200
f1600
f2000
f2400
f2800
f0
f400
f800
f1200
f1600
f2000
f2400
f2800
f0
f400
f800
f1200
f1600
f2000
f2400
f2800
35
6

7. Are there differences between monolinguals
Spanish – Overt subjects
and bilinguals in the interpretation of overt
Monolinguals
Italian-Spanish bilinguals
pronouns?
• In both age groups the Spanish-Italian bilinguals
start fixating more on the target at 2200ms after
1
1
pronoun onset
0.8
0.8
• For the monolinguals more fixations on the target
0.6
0.6
start later at 2800ms after pronoun onset.
overt target
overt target
0.4
0.4
0.2
overt competitor
0.2
overt competitor
• For the English-Italian bilinguals they start
0
0
between 2400 and 2600 ms after pronoun onset.
f0
f200
f400
f600
f800
f1000
f1200
f1400
f1600
f1800
f2000
f2200
f2400
f2600
f2800
f3000
f0
f200
f400
f600
f800
f1000
f1200
f1400
f1600
f1800
f2000
f2200
f2400
f2600
f2800
f3000
• No significant differences either as a function of
number of languages or the language combination.
Off-line and on-line evidence
So where’s the difference?
• The offline differences observed between • The differences between bilingual and
bilinguals and monolinguals in monolingual children might arise at a later
comprehension tasks and in production do point of the comprehension process – at
not correspond to differences in the the stage of the integration of information
timecourse of anaphora resolution.
that precedes the formulation of a
metalinguistic judgment.
• The problem may be one of UPDATING
and INTEGRATION
40
What aspects of executive function are Processing resources necessary to…
involved in using anaphoric forms?
• ASSESS the interlocutor s knowledge state and of
• In natural interaction, speakers have to be relative accessibility of referent.
able to rapidly update the discourse model
• ESTABLISH the right pronoun-antecedent
in order to integrate changing information dependency and INHIBIT other possible
from the context and from the assessment of dependencies within the language-in-use.
the interlocutor’s knowledge state.
• INHIBIT the dependency offered by the other
language in the same context (if different).
• INTEGRATE contextual/pragmatic cues and
UPDATE the discourse model when necessary.
41
42
7

8. But what exactly is the bilingual
processing problem, then? 1 / Insufficient resources
• Bilinguals need to exercise executive control to
avoid interference from the unwanted language
• Insufficient resources?
• This may take attentional resources away from
• Inconsistent allocation of resources?
other tasks.
• If anaphoric dependencies partly draw on the same
Let’s explore these two possibilities.
pool of attentional resources used to keep the two
languages separate, this might explain why
bilinguals are not consistent at computing these
dependencies
43
44
Partly converging evidence in
Effect size and L1 vs. L2 other populations
inhibition
• Discoordination in pronominal reference
• The overextension of overt pronouns is
SMALLER in attrited L1 speakers than in L2 has also emerged as a factor in other
speakers of Italian. Why?
populations sensitive to cognitive load:
• In L2 speakers, the unwanted language is their – ageing speakers (Titone et al 2000)
(still dominant) L1, which needs more resources – schizophrenic patients (Phillips Silverstein
to be inhibited.
2003; Watson et al. 2011)
• In attrited L1 speakers, the unwanted language
– autistic children (who OVERSPECIFY
is their (less dominant) L2 which needs fewer
resources to be inhibited.
anaphoric references (e.g. they use more
explicit expressions), just like bilinguals
45
(Arnold, Bennetto Diehl 2009).
46
2 / Resource allocation: a trade-off
2 / Resource allocation
between inhibition and integration?
• The problem might be one of resource allocation
in the calculation of syntax-discourse • Integrating pragmatic information and
dependencies, rather than resource limitation.
updating the current mental representation
• Resource allocation: the ability to flexibly direct of the anaphoric context may be regarded,
attentional resources as a function of the task and in a sense, as ‘the opposite’ of the ability to
the complexity of the incoming material (Titone et selectively focus attention and exercise
al 2000).
inhibitory control.
• Affected by contextual unpredictability and
• Integration requires “disengagement” of
uncertainty (cf. Levy 2008)
inhibition (Blumenfeld Marian 2010).
47
48
8

9. 2 / Resource allocation: a trade-off
A new hypothesis
between inhibition and integration?
• Inconsistent ability to integrate information • The bilingual experience may confer
may represent an outcome of superiority in advantages in inhibitory control but at the
inhibitory control.
same time potential disadvantages in
• Possibly a normal distribution of cognitive modulation of inhibition and central
profiles.
coherence .
49
50
2 / Resource allocation: age
Native vs late bilinguals
effects
• Possible developmental / age of onset effects of • Early bilinguals can inhibit but also “disengage”
bilinguals modulation of executive control.
inhibition more easily than monolinguals; release
of inhibition allows easier task switching and
• There may be differences between early and late updating of mental sets (Blumenfeld Marian
bilinguals not so much with respect to inhibition 2011). Why?
itself but especially with respect to the trade-off • Because of input received at a maturationally
between inhibition and switching/updating of critical time when processing abilities are
mental sets.
sharpened by the bilingual experience and tuned in
optimally to the two languages.
51
52
A recent experiment
• Early bilinguals: best balance between inhibitory
control and modulation of inhibition, increasing • Bak, Everington, Rose Sorace
during childhood.
(submitted) used three tasks from the Test
• Attrited L1 speakers: modulation of inhibition of Everyday Attention (Robertson et al
affected by drop of input exposure; less input 1994) with early and late bilinguals:
affects ability to modulate/switch/update
– 1: count the tones (sustained attention)
• Late (advanced) L2 speakers: good at inhibitory
control but less good at modulation of inhibition; – 2: count only the high tones but not the low
trade-off between the two more visible; exposure tones (selective attention and inhibition)
to input, even if prolonged/sustained, happens – 3: count up if you hear a high tone, reverse the
after processing abilities have developed for one direction of counting if you hear a low tone
language;
53
(switching and monitoring)
54
9

10. Bilingualism in early and late childhood : Bilingualism in young adulthood:
cognitive effects cognitive effects
• All bilinguals better than
• 60 students aged 19-34 • 19 monolinguals aged 19
monolinguals
years, divided into 100
to 24, and 19 late
monolinguals (n=19) and 95 bilinguals aged 19 to 31.
bilinguals (n=41).
Score (%)
90
85
Monolinguals
Bilinguals
80
75
• All bilinguals had started
• Bilinguals had acquired 70
TEA 1 TEA 2 TEA 3
learning a second language
both their languages TEA Sub-test
after age 14.
before the age of 3 years
(n=22) or between the age • No significant differences between
early and late childhood bilinguals
• In the TEA test, the late
of 4 and 15 years (n=19)
bilingual advantage is
100
95
significant only for sub-
90
• Differences between early test 2 (inhibition) but not
Score (%)
Early Bilinguals
85 Late Bilinguals
Monolinguals
and late childhood 80
75
for sub-test 3 (switching).
bilinguals greater for sub- 70
TEA 1 TEA 2 TEA 3
55 56
task 2.
TEA Sub-test
Conclusions/2
Conclusions/1
• Linguistic and non-linguistic factors are closely
• Crosslinguistic influence and general cognitive intertwined.
limitations are not mutually exclusive.
• Inconsistent modulation of inhibition (a particular
• LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS TELLS US resource allocation problem) may be one of the
WHERE OPTIONALITY CAN BE sources of linguistic interface variation in late
EXPECTED, BUT GENERAL bilinguals (in both L1 and L2) and some
COGNITIVE FACTORS TELL US WHEN developmental delays in early bilinguals.
OPTIONALITY ACTUALLY OCCURS.
• Early exposure to a second language and
continuity of input exposure are the best predictors
of balance between inhibitory control and
modulation of inhibition and ability resolve the
57
constant tension between the two.
58
References
Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., and Clifton, C.,2002.
Null vs. Overt Pronouns and the Topic-Focus Articulation in Spanish.
Rivista di Linguistica, 14: 2.
Arnold, J., Bennetto, L. and Diehl, J. 2009. Reference production in
young speakers with and without autism: Effects of discourse status
and processing constraints. Cognition 110: 131–146.
Belletti, A., Bennati, E. and Sorace, A. 2007. Theoretical and
THANK YOU
developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: evidence from near-
native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.
Bini, M. 1993. La adquisición del italiano: más allá de las propiedades
sintácticas del parámetro pro-drop. In J. M. Liceras (Ed.), La
lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no nativos. Ottawa:
Dovehouse, 126-139.
Burkhardt, P. 2005. The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Representing and
Interpreting Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carminati, M. 2002. The Processing of Italian Subject Pronouns, PhD
Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
59
60
10

11. Chamorro, G. 2012. L1 attrition in the interpretation of pronominal
subjects in Spanish L2 learners of English. PhD dissertation (to be
submitted), University of Edinburgh.
Costa, A., Pickering, M. and Sorace. A. 2008. Alignment in second Serratrice, L. and Sorace, A. forthcoming. Online processing of null and
language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 528-556. overt pronouns in Italian and Spanish: Evidence from bilingual and
Filiaci, F., Sorace, A. and Carreiras, M. 2010. Anaphoric biases of Null monolingual children.
and Overt Subjects in Italian and Spanish: a cross-linguistic Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Filiaci, F. and Baldo, M. 2009. Bilingual
comparison (submitted).
children's sensitivity to specificity and genericity: evidence from
Hopp, H. 2007. Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language metalinguistic awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12.
acquisition: grammar and processing. PhD dissertation, University of Serratrice, L. Sorace, A. Filiaci, F. and Baldo, M., 2012. Cross-linguistic
Groningen.
influence in bilingual children: the case of pronominal objects. Applied
Kaiser, E. and Trueswell, J. 2008. Interpreting pronouns and Psycholinguistics.
demonstratives in Finnish: evidence for a form-specific approach to Sorace, A. 2005. Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In L. Cornips and K.
reference resolution'. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 707-748.
Corrigan (eds). Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and
Margaza, P. and Bel, A. 2006. Null subjects at the syntax-pragmatics the Social , 46-111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
interface: evidence from Spanish interlanguage of Greek speakers. Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of interface in bilingualism.
Proceedings of GASLA 2006.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: 1-33.
Phillips, W. and Silverstein, S. 2003. Convergence of biological and Sorace, A. 2012. Pinning down the concept of interface in bilingualism:
psychological perspectives on cognitive coordination in schizophrenia. a reply to peer commentaries. To appear in Linguistic Approaches to
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26: 65–138.
Bilingualism 2.
Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.) 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Sorace, A. and Filiaci, F. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native
61
62
Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22: 339-368.
Sorace, A. and Serratrice, L. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in
bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap.
International Journal of Bilingualism 13. Wilson, F. 2009. Processing at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in Second Language
Sorace, A., Serratrice, L. Filiaci, F. and Baldo, M. 2009. Discourse Acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
conditions on subject pronoun realization: testing the linguistic Wilson, F., Sorace, A. and Keller, F. 2008. Antecedent preferences for anaphoric
intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua 119: 460-477. demonstratives in L2 German. BUCLD 2008 Proceedings.
Sturt, P. 2002. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in Wilson, F. Keller, F. and Sorace, A. 2010. Simulating L2 learner behaviour at the
reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 48: 542-562
syntax-discourse interface. Submitted.
Titone, D., Prentice, K. and Wingfield, A. 2000. Resource allocation
during spoken discourse processing: Effects of age and passage
difficulty as revealed by self-paced listening. Memory Cognition 28
(6): 1029-1040.
Treccani, B., Argyri, E., Sorace, A. and Della Sala, S. 2009. Spatial
negative priming in bilingualism. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 16:
320-327.
Tsimpli, I.M. and Sorace, A. 2006. Differentiating interfaces: L2
performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena.
BUCLD Proceedings 30: 653-664.
Tsimpli, T. Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. 2004. First language
attrition and syntactic subjects: a study of Greek and Italian near-native
speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8: 257-277.
63 64
11