1

1

VARIATION IN ANAPHORIC EXPRESSIONS IN EARLY AND

LATE BILINGUALISM �

Antonella Sorace University of Edinburgh antonella@ling.ed.ac.uk

ExAPP 2013, Copenhagen, 20 March 2013

Focus of this talk

•  Variation due to the interplay of linguistic and general cognitive factors in bilingualism.

•  Division of labour between language and other cognitive faculties in different structures.

2

The “Interface Hypothesis”�

•  In early bilinguals, advanced L2 speakers, and L1 speakers under attrition, language properties at the interfaces between grammar and pragmatics present significantly more variation than properties less affected by contextual conditions.

•  Interfaces = > computational complexity (Sorace 2011; Hopp 2011)

3

Computational complexity: a graded continuum?

•  Structures may be complex for a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic reasons.

4

Different structures, different forms of cognitive control

•  One possibility is that different kinds of cognitive operations are involved.

•  Processing extra-syntactic information consumes more resources that morphosyntactic processing.

•  Morphosyntactic processing relies on more proceduralized mechanisms (Avrutin 2006; Ullman 2006).

5

Anaphora resolution in Italian •  Italian allows both the expression and the

omission of subject pronouns (1) E’ partito.

Is gone

•  The choice of a null or overt subject is conditioned by pragmatic factors such as and topicality.

(2) Giannii ha salutato Pietrok quando proi / lui*i/k/j è arrivato.

Gianni greeted Pietro when pro / he arrived. 6

2

7

Anaphora resolution in bilingual speakers of null-subject languages

Different bilingual groups –  advanced L2 speakers of Italian (both with English and

another null subject language as L1); –  attrited L1 speakers of Italian –  bilingual Italian-English children (both with English and

Spanish as L1s)

overextend the scope of overt subject pronoun (Belletti et al. 2007; Sorace & Filiaci 2006; Tsimpli, Sorace, Heycock & Filiaci 2004; Sorace et al 2009)

E.g. (3) Mario non vede Luigi da quando lui si è sposato Mario hasn’t seen Luigi since he got married

But: they do so to different degrees. 7

(Mis)interpretation of overt pronominal subjects in anaphora

•  Bilingual Italian speakers may interpret the overt pronominal subject of the embedded clause as as coreferential with the lexical subject of the main clause:

(2) a. La vecchietta saluta la ragazza quando pro i/?j attraversa la strada.

b. La vecchietta saluta la ragazza quando leii/j attraversa la strada.

“The old woman greets the girl when pro/she crosses the road”.

8

9

Anaphora resolution in German

•  Convergence between L2 acquisition and L1 attrition also found for German pronouns (er, sie, es) and demonstratives (der, die, das) as anaphoric forms (Wilson et al 2010, submitted).

•  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

Weaker biases for overt pronouns in adult monolingual Italians

•  Native Italian speakers have weaker antecedent preferences for overt pronouns than for null pronouns, especially in non-ambiguous contexts (Carminati 2002, 2006).

10

Division of labour between null and overt subject pronouns

The Position of Antecedent Strategy (PAS): In intersentential anaphoric contexts, •  null pronouns have a strong preference for the

antecedent in subject position. •  overt pronouns have a weaker preference for an

antecedent in non-subject position.

(Carminati 2002, 2005; Alonso-Ovalle et al. 2005)

11 11

Flexibility of overt pronouns in unambiguous contexts

AMBIGUOUS CONTEXT (two plausible antecedents)

(4) Marta scriveva spesso a Piera quando ∅ / lei era in vacanza (lei=Maria) M. wrote frequently to P. when ∅ / she was on holiday

UNAMBIGUOUS CONTEXT (one plausible antecedent)

(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

•  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.

12 12

3

German anaphora

•  In German, like in Italian, the division of labour between the two anaphoric forms is more visible in semantically unbiased, potentially ambiguous contexts (Bosch & Umbach 2007).

•  If there are no competing referents, the demonstrative can refer to subject antecedents, although it tends to avoid discourse topics. 13 14

The Form Specific Multiple Constraints Approach

•  Personal pronouns –  prefer subject antecedents --> syntactic dependency

•  Demonstrative pronouns –  prefer non-topics   discourse dependency

(Kaiser & Trueswell 2008)

Bilingual extension of the marked form

•  In both Italian and German, the marked / less frequent form is voided of its specific features and extended by bilinguals to the domain of the other form.

15 16 16

A linguistic explanation: underspecification of pragmatic feature mappings (Tsimpli et el. 2004)

•  The monolingual Italian grammar: OVERT => [+TS] NULL => [-TS]

•  The L2 near-native / L1 attrited Italian grammar: OVERT => [+TS] OVERT => [-TS] NULL => [-TS]

Underspecification as a common account for bilinguals

•  ‘Developmental’, ‘residual’ and ‘emerging’ optionality involve “bleaching” of interface pragmatic conditions on the marked anaphoric form.

•  An interface feature (“+Topic Shift”) that is specified in L2 (L1) remains (becomes) underspecified.

•  In some bilingual language combinations, this phenomenon may appear to be due to the absence of a similar condition in L1 (L2) in the same syntactic context. 17 18

Apparent crosslinguistic effects

•  The language that has the least restrictive option affects the other (regardless of whether it is L1 or L2), but not vice versa.

•  L1 attrition involves neutralization of L1 distinctions towards the less restrictive L2 system.

•  L2 acquisition may present neutralization of L2 distinctions towards the less restrictive L1 system.

(PREDICTION: no Italian -> English effects on subject pronouns (either in L1 or L2) leading to null subjects in English)

18

4

19

But this isn’t the whole story….

•  The overuse of overt pronouns is also attested in the second language of bilingual speakers of two null subject languages of the same type.

•  (WARNING: see Filiaci, Sorace & Carreiras, submitted, for a comparison of Italian and Spanish showing differences in the distribution of pronominal forms).

19

Two null subject languages: L2 and L3 acquisition data

Overt pronouns overextended: •  L1 Spanish ->L2 Italian (Bini 1993) •  L1 Greek ->L2 Spanish (Malgaza & Bel 2006) •  L1 Greek – L2 Spanish (Lozano 2007) •  L1 Spanish - L2 European Portuguese (Mendes & Iribarren

2007) •  2L1 Italian-Spanish (Sorace et al. 2009). Overt pronouns NOT overextended: •  L1 Croatian – L3 Italian (Kras 2008) •  L1 Spanish – L3 Brazilian Portuguese (Montrul et al.

2008)

20

21 21

Another case of convergence: bilingual children�

(Serratrice et al., 2009; Sorace et al. 2009) •  Two interfaces: syntax-semantics (specificity vs genericity

in bare nominals; focus and object pronouns) and syntax-discourse (null vs. overt subject pronouns).

•  Large group (N=167) of older bilingual children: age ranges 6-8 and 9-10.

•  Two language combinations: –  Italian-Spanish –  Italian -English

•  Two acquisition settings for English-Italian bilinguals: UK and Italy.

•  Monolingual child and adult controls.

22 22

Results for subject pronouns •  No effect of language combination •  Both I-E and I-S bilinguals accept overt

subject pronouns in [-TS] null subject pronoun contexts (Paperinoi ha detto che luii è caduto ‘Donald Ducki said that hei fell’).

A different pattern for structures involving the syntax-semantics interface

•  Only I-E children accept generic bare nominals in Italian (*Elefanti non volano ‘Elephants don’t fly)

•  Only I-E children accept postverbal object pronouns in unfocused contexts (Che cosa ha fatto Paperina a Minnie? *Ha abbracciato lei ‘What did Daisy do to Minnie? She hugged her).

•  I-S children do NOT accept these structures. 23

Revisiting the syntax-pragmatics problem: not just crosslinguistic influence

•  Structures requiring the integration of syntactic knowledge and pragmatic information are computationally more demanding.

•  Near-native L2 speakers, FLAt speakers, and other bilinguals may have inconsistent but persisting problems in integrating grammar and pragmatics efficiently in real time.

•  A general effect of bilingualism?

24 24

5

Default forms?

•  Overt pronouns and demonstratives may function as a ‘default’ form that both monolinguals and bilinguals use (to different extents) to compensate for occasional inefficiency in computing syntax-pragmatics mappings.

25 25

A test: attrition and recent L1 exposure (Chamorro 2012)

•  L1 Spanish attrited speakers show inconsistency when using and interpreting subject pronouns.

•  Are these attrition effects sensitive to recent exposure to a Spanish-speaking environment? Do they decrease/disappear?

•  If so, knowledge representations are unaffected by attrition.

26

Chamorro (2012) •  24 ‘monolinguals’, 24 ‘attriters’, and 24 ‘exposed’, all with

L1 Spanish. •  Monolinguals had just arrived to the UK and had very little

knowledge of English. •  Attriters had been residing in the UK for a minimum of 5

years and were advanced speakers of English. •  Exposed were attriters who had been exposed exclusively

to Spanish in Spain for a minimum of a week just before they were tested.

•  Results: the antecedent preferences for overt pronouns of exposed speakers are intermediate between monolinguals and attriters.

27

So what’s the bilingual problem?

•  Bilinguals resort to default forms more often than monolinguals.

•  Is this related to the processing of anaphora resolution in real time? If so, to what stage of processing?

•  We have addressed this question in a visual eye-tracking study on older bilingual children.

28

Referential preferences over time: �on-line evidence from eye-tracking�

(Serratrice & Sorace, in prep.)

•  Participants –  Age groups:

•  6- to 8-year-olds; 8- to 10-year-olds –  Language background:

•  31 monolingual Italian children (Italy) •  35 Spanish-Italian bilinguals (Spain) •  32 Italian-English bilinguals (Italy)

–  Bilinguals: •  Regular exposure to both languages (0-2 years onset) •  Italian/English as medium of instruction

Experiment 1: ambiguous sentences

•  Null pronoun condition La nonna saluta la ragazza in cucina mentre __ apre con calma

la porta. The grandma says good-bye to the girl in the kitchen while (she)

calmly opens the door

•  Overt pronoun condition Il contadino incontra il prete alla fattoria mentre lui accarezza

con curiosità un coniglio. The farmer meets the priest at the farm while he strokes with

curiosity a rabbit

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 Monolinguals Italian-Spanish bilinguals Italian-English bilinguals

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f400

f800

f120

0 f1

600

f200

0 f2

400

f280

0

null target

null competitor

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f400

f800

f120

0 f1

600

f200

0 f2

400

f280

0

null target

null competitor

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f400

f800

f120

0 f1

600

f200

0 f2

400

f280

0

null target

null competitor

Spanish – Null subjects Monolinguals Italian-Spanish bilinguals

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f200

f400

f600

f800

f100

0 f1

200

f140

0 f1

600

f180

0 f2

000

f220

0 f2

400

f260

0 f2

800

f300

0

null target null competitor

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f200

f400

f600

f800

f100

0 f1

200

f140

0 f1

600

f180

0 f2

000

f220

0 f2

400

f260

0 f2

800

f300

0

null target null competitor

Are there differences between monolinguals and bilinguals in the interpretation of null

pronouns? •  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 languages and of the combination of languages.

•  For the older children, only the Spanish-Italian bilinguals look more at the target, but only 1600ms after verb onset.

35

Italian – Overt subjects Monolinguals Italian-Spanish bilinguals Italian-English bilinguals

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f400

f800

f120

0 f1

600

f200

0 f2

400

f280

0

overt target

overt competior

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f400

f800

f120

0 f1

600

f200

0 f2

400

f280

0

overt target

overt competitor

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f400

f800

f120

0 f1

600

f200

0 f2

400

f280

0

overt target

overt competitor

7

Spanish – Overt subjects Monolinguals Italian-Spanish bilinguals

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f200

f400

f600

f800

f100

0 f1

200

f140

0 f1

600

f180

0 f2

000

f220

0 f2

400

f260

0 f2

800

f300

0

overt target overt competitor

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

f0

f200

f400

f600

f800

f100

0 f1

200

f140

0 f1

600

f180

0 f2

000

f220

0 f2

400

f260

0 f2

800

f300

0

overt target overt competitor

Are there differences between monolinguals and bilinguals in the interpretation of overt

pronouns? •  In both age groups the Spanish-Italian bilinguals

start fixating more on the target at 2200ms after pronoun onset

•  For the monolinguals more fixations on the target start later at 2800ms after pronoun onset.

•  For the English-Italian bilinguals they start between 2400 and 2600 ms after pronoun onset.

•  No significant differences either as a function of number of languages or the language combination.

Off-line and on-line evidence

•  The offline differences observed between bilinguals and monolinguals in comprehension tasks and in production do not correspond to differences in the timecourse of anaphora resolution.

So where’s the difference?

•  The differences between bilingual and monolingual children might arise at a later point of the comprehension process – at the stage of the integration of information that precedes the formulation of a metalinguistic judgment.

•  The problem may be one of UPDATING and INTEGRATION

40

What aspects of executive function are involved in using anaphoric forms?�

•  In natural interaction, speakers have to be able to rapidly update the discourse model in order to integrate changing information from the context and from the assessment of the interlocutor’s knowledge state.

41

Processing resources necessary to…

•  ASSESS the interlocutor’s knowledge state and of relative accessibility of referent.

•  ESTABLISH the right pronoun-antecedent dependency and INHIBIT other possible dependencies within the language-in-use.

•  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.

42

8

But what exactly is the bilingual processing problem, then?�

•  Insufficient resources? •  Inconsistent allocation of resources?

Let’s explore these two possibilities.

43

1 / Insufficient resources

•  Bilinguals need to exercise executive control to avoid interference from the unwanted language

•  This may take attentional resources away from other tasks.

•  If anaphoric dependencies partly draw on the same pool of attentional resources used to keep the two languages separate, this might explain why bilinguals are not consistent at computing these dependencies

44

Effect size and L1 vs. L2 inhibition

•  The overextension of overt pronouns is SMALLER in attrited L1 speakers than in L2 speakers of Italian. Why?

•  In L2 speakers, the unwanted language is their (still dominant) L1, which  needs more resources to be inhibited.

•  In ‘attrited’ L1 speakers, the unwanted language is their (less dominant) L2 which needs fewer resources to be inhibited.

45

Partly converging evidence in other populations

•  Discoordination in pronominal reference has also emerged as a factor in other populations sensitive to cognitive load: –  ageing speakers (Titone et al 2000) –  schizophrenic patients (Phillips & Silverstein

2003; Watson et al. 2011) –  autistic children (who OVERSPECIFY

anaphoric references (e.g. they use more explicit expressions), just like bilinguals (Arnold, Bennetto & Diehl 2009). 46

2 / Resource allocation •  The problem might be one of resource allocation

in the calculation of syntax-discourse dependencies, rather than resource limitation.

•  Resource allocation: the ability to flexibly direct attentional resources as a function of the task and the complexity of the incoming material (Titone et al 2000).

•  Affected by contextual unpredictability and uncertainty (cf. Levy 2008)

47

2 / Resource allocation: a trade-off between inhibition and integration?

•  Integrating pragmatic information and updating the current mental representation of the anaphoric context may be regarded, in a sense, as ‘the opposite’ of the ability to selectively focus attention and exercise inhibitory control.

•  Integration requires “disengagement” of inhibition (Blumenfeld & Marian 2010).

48

9

2 / Resource allocation: a trade-off between inhibition and integration?

•  Inconsistent ability to integrate information may represent an outcome of superiority in inhibitory control.

•  Possibly a normal distribution of cognitive profiles.

49

A new hypothesis

•  The bilingual experience may confer advantages in inhibitory control but at the same time potential disadvantages in modulation of inhibition and ‘central coherence’.

50

2 / Resource allocation: age effects

•  Possible developmental / age of onset effects of bilinguals’ modulation of executive control.

•  There may be differences between early and late bilinguals not so much with respect to inhibition itself but especially with respect to the trade-off between inhibition and switching/updating of mental sets.

51

Native vs late bilinguals

•  Early bilinguals can inhibit but also “disengage” inhibition more easily than monolinguals; release of inhibition allows easier task switching and updating of mental sets (Blumenfeld & Marian 2011). Why?

•  Because of input received at a maturationally critical time when processing abilities are sharpened by the bilingual experience and tuned in optimally to the two languages.

52

•  Early bilinguals: best balance between inhibitory control and modulation of inhibition, increasing during childhood.

•  Attrited L1 speakers: modulation of inhibition affected by drop of input exposure; less input affects ability to modulate/switch/update

•  Late (advanced) L2 speakers: good at inhibitory control but less good at modulation of inhibition; trade-off between the two more visible; exposure to input, even if prolonged/sustained, happens after processing abilities have developed for one language; 53

A recent experiment •  Bak, Everington, Rose & Sorace

(submitted) used three tasks from the Test of Everyday Attention (Robertson et al 1994) with early and late bilinguals: –  1: count the tones (sustained attention) –  2: count only the high tones but not the low

tones (selective attention and inhibition) –  3: count up if you hear a high tone, reverse the

direction of counting if you hear a low tone (switching and monitoring) 54

10

Bilingualism in early and late childhood : cognitive effects�

•  60 students aged 19-34 years, divided into monolinguals (n=19) and bilinguals (n=41).

•  Bilinguals had acquired both their languages before the age of 3 years (n=22) or between the age of 4 and 15 years (n=19)

•  Differences between early and late childhood bilinguals greater for sub-task 2.

•  All bilinguals better than monolinguals

•  No significant differences between early and late childhood bilinguals

55

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

TEA 1 TEA 2 TEA 3

TEA Sub-test

Sco

re (

%)

Monolinguals

Bilinguals

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

TEA 1 TEA 2 TEA 3

TEA Sub-test

Sco

re (%

)

Early Bilinguals

Late Bilinguals

Monolinguals

Bilingualism in young adulthood: �cognitive effects�

•  19 monolinguals aged 19 to 24, and 19 late bilinguals aged 19 to 31.

•  All bilinguals had started learning a second language after age 14.

•  In the TEA test, the late bilingual advantage is significant only for sub-test 2 (inhibition) but not for sub-test 3 (switching).

56

57

Conclusions/1 •  Crosslinguistic influence and general cognitive

limitations are not mutually exclusive. •  LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS TELLS US

WHERE OPTIONALITY CAN BE EXPECTED, BUT GENERAL COGNITIVE FACTORS TELL US WHEN OPTIONALITY ACTUALLY OCCURS.

57

Conclusions/2 •  Linguistic and non-linguistic factors are closely

intertwined. •  Inconsistent modulation of inhibition (a particular

resource allocation problem) may be one of the sources of linguistic “interface” variation in late bilinguals (in both L1 and L2) and some developmental delays in early bilinguals.

•  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 constant tension between the two. 58

THANK YOU

59 60 60

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 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.

11

61 61

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 language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 528-556.

Filiaci, F., Sorace, A. and Carreiras, M. 2010. Anaphoric biases of Null and Overt Subjects in Italian and Spanish: a cross-linguistic comparison (submitted).

Hopp, H. 2007. Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: grammar and processing. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.

Kaiser, E. and Trueswell, J. 2008. Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution'. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 707-748.

Margaza, P. and Bel, A. 2006. Null subjects at the syntax-pragmatics interface: evidence from Spanish interlanguage of Greek speakers. Proceedings of GASLA 2006.

Phillips, W. and Silverstein, S. 2003. Convergence of biological and psychological perspectives on cognitive coordination in schizophrenia. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26: 65–138.

Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.) 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

62

Serratrice, L. and Sorace, A. forthcoming. Online processing of null and overt pronouns in Italian and Spanish: Evidence from bilingual and monolingual children.

Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Filiaci, F. and Baldo, M. 2009. Bilingual children's sensitivity to specificity and genericity: evidence from metalinguistic awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12.

Serratrice, L. Sorace, A. Filiaci, F. and Baldo, M., 2012. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual children: the case of pronominal objects. Applied Psycholinguistics.

Sorace, A. 2005. Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In L. Cornips and K. Corrigan (eds). Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social , 46-111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: 1-33.

Sorace, A. 2012. Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism: a reply to peer commentaries. To appear in Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2.

Sorace, A. and Filiaci, F. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native 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.

Sorace, A., Serratrice, L. Filiaci, F. and Baldo, M. 2009. Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua 119: 460-477.

Sturt, P. 2002. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 48: 542-562

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

Wilson, F. 2009. Processing at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in Second Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

Wilson, F., Sorace, A. and Keller, F. 2008. Antecedent preferences for anaphoric demonstratives in L2 German. BUCLD 2008 Proceedings.

Wilson, F. Keller, F. and Sorace, A. 2010. Simulating L2 learner behaviour at the syntax-discourse interface. Submitted.

64