34.2651, Review: The Anti-Racism Linguist

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-34-2651. Thu Sep 07 2023. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 34.2651, Review: The Anti-Racism Linguist

Moderators: Malgorzata E. Cavar, Francis Tyers (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Everett Green, Daniel Swanson, Maria Lucero Guillen Puon, Zackary Leech, Lynzie Coburn, Natasha Singh, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Maria Lucero Guillen Puon <luceroguillen at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: 10-Aug-2023
From: Phaedra Royle [phaedra.royle at umontreal.ca]
Subject: Applied Linguistics: Friedrich (ed.)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/34.690

EDITOR: Patricia Friedrich
TITLE: The Anti-Racism Linguist
SUBTITLE: A Book of Readings
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2023

REVIEWER: Phaedra Royle

SUMMARY

These two volumes contain 66 papers presented at the 41st Annual
Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) held
November 4-6, 2016. The annual BUCLD conference is organized by
professors and students in the Linguistics Program at Boston
University, and attracts papers from leading researchers over the
world as well as emerging new researchers, and represents a wide range
of theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of language
acquisition. A first this year was that posters, in addition to talks,
were accepted as publications in the proceedings. Due to the number of
papers only a third of the papers are directly reviewed, and because
of space limitations few theoretical aspects are presented here.
Interested readers are encouraged to read the original texts for a
more in depth understanding.

OVERVIEW

Linguists and psycholinguists, speech-language pathologists, and
others interested in the development of phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics, and pragmatics, in monolingual, bilingual, and
language-disordered populations, will find a wide variety of research
articles in the BUCLD 41 proceedings.

All chapters are organized alphabetically by first author in BUCLD
proceedings. The complete table of contents as well as pdf versions
for all papers are available on the Cascadilla Press web site at
http://www.cascadilla.com/bucld41toc.html. Pdf versions are a new and
interesting feature of this publication since 2016, before which it
was sometimes difficult to obtain individual copies of papers without
buying the book.

These papers can be viewed as “working papers” with highly innovative
approaches to new or old questions, and indicators of potential new
research that will eventually be published elsewhere. Although BUCLD
has a diverse tradition in topics, the number of languages covered in
this issue seems even larger than usual (noted are: American Sign
Language, Arabic, Basque, Cantonese, Catalan, Central Taurus Sign
Language, Croatian, Cypriot Greek, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian,
Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Lithuanian, Japanese,
Korean, Maltese, Mandarin, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian,
Serbian, Spanish, and Turkish). Topics cover domains in theoretical
syntax, phonology, etc., and papers use a number of methodological
approaches for research on language acquisition and cognitive
development, for example eye-tracking, ERPs, and preferential-looking
paradigms, as well as more traditional corpus analyses and elicitation
studies, with various populations (bilinguals, deaf signers or oral
language learners, children with ASD, and more). I present reviews of
selected papers here.

Abed Ibrahim and Hamann (pp. 1-17) present work on the usefulness of
sentence and non-word repetition tasks for identifying Arabic-German
and Turkish-German bilingual children with and without specific
language impairment (SLI). They show that both types of tasks are
useful for identifying monolingual (German-speaking) as well as
bilingual children with language impairment aged 5 to 9. The authors
take care to vary both tasks on linguistic complexity (while
controlling for working memory load), in order to identify
linguistic-specific domains of weakness in children with SLI.

Bentea and Durrleman (pp. 60-73) study the comprehension of relative
clauses in French using subject-verb number (mis-)match (e.g., _Montre
moi le chat que le/s chiens mord/ent_ [mɔʁ/d] ‘show me the cat that
the dog/s bite/s’. Results show that children have difficulty
interpreting object relative clauses if both potential antecedents
(i.e., cat and dog) match in number. However, audible agreement on the
verb (which is not consistent in French) did not improve comprehension
abilities, especially in young (aged 5-8) children. This is consistent
with research on simpler structures showing that French-speaking
children show protracted mastery of agreement in production and even
comprehension in French (Pourquié & Royle, in preparation) and slow
emergence of attraction effects on verbs (after 7, Franck et al,
2004).

In “What's a Foo? Toddlers Are Not Tolerant of Other Children's
Mispronunciations” (pp. 88-100), Bernier and White evaluate children’s
perception of child-like feature-mismatches or novel labels to known
word targets (e.g. _shoe_ [ʃu] -> _foo_ [fu], _voo_ [vu], _goo_ [gu]
or _tibble_ [tɪbəl]). They find that children are quite intolerant of
even 1-feature errors (e.g. _foo_), although they show graded
sensitivity to all types of errors. However, children with experience
interacting with other children who spoke languages other than English
also had a tendency to map 3-feature errors to novel objects more
often than children who did not have this sociolinguistic experience.

Boyce, Aravind, and Hackl (pp. 101-113) undertake a corpus-based study
of lexical and syntactic effects on auxiliary selection in French.
French has two auxiliaries (_avoir_ ‘have’ and _être_ ‘be’), which are
used with different verbs based on argument/event structure, with the
exception of reflexive verbs which must take _être_. The authors
establish that transitive verbs are appropriately produced with
_avoir_ and that intransitives, while being strongly mastered, show
some errors not linked to cross-linguistic stability, as predicted by
Sorace (2000), but rather to age. The authors attribute the data,
after a closer look at their patterns, not to item-based learning but
rather to early error prone learning of exception types and later
perfect mastery of new items falling into these difficult-to-learn
categories. Furthermore, auxiliary selection ceilinged at age 3, while
reflexive clitic use linked to auxiliary selection took much longer
(age 6 and above), and these two behaviors were not correlated,
leaving open the question of how mastery of reflexive clitics comes
about in French.

Brooks, Maouene, Sailor, and Seiger-Gardner (pp. 114-127) use latent
semantic analysis (LSA) and the continuous bag of words (CBOW) to
study the semantic networks of children with and without SLI. Children
with SLI did not show strong word finding difficulties in an
association production task (usually less than 5%) but did show
different patterns than controls, exhibiting more clang
(phonologically similar words), perseverant, and idiosyncratic
responses than controls. Their CBOW semantic distance scores were
higher than controls and their LSA similarity ones were lower.
However, the authors present and analyze qualitative data as percent
response types rather than frequencies, which would be more
appropriate. Network community structures were also found to be more
differentiated into word groups in children without than those with
SLI.

Choi and Ionin (pp. 154-167) present a study on Korean and Mandarin
adult learners of the mass / count distinction in English and
establish that atomicity is a salient cue for this feature when
comparing processing of ungrammatical non-atomic (e.g. _*sunshines_)
vs. ungrammatical atomic ‘fake’ mass nouns (e.g., _*furnitures_). No
effect of first-language was found on their grammaticality judgment
and eye-tracking measures, suggesting that atomicity is a semantic
universal.

Jensen, Slabakova, and Westergaard (pp. 333-346) investigate Norwegian
second language (L2) learners’ ability to learn subject-verb agreement
(morphology) and unlearn verb second (syntax) in English. They show
that the first process is harder than the second, confirming the
bottleneck hypothesis (Slabakova, 2008) that functional morphology is
the most difficult domain of L2 acquisition. However, their paradigm
confounds learning vs. unlearning and domain (syntax and morphology).
Anecdotally, I learned the same processes in the other direction
(English -> Danish) and found unlearning subject-verb agreement much
easier than verb second. Obviously the absence of verb morphology
played a role in my unlearning. This factor might also have impacted
results on this study (i.e., making learning harder in the other
direction). It would be interesting to investigate more closely which
factors (e.g., unlearning vs. learning, obligatory in L1 vs. L2,
morphology vs. syntax) are driving results.

Kapatsinski (pp. 357-372) uses singular-plural novel-word learning to
investigate how rule-like or statistical-like learning might obtain,
depending on the type of input received. Results show that both rule
and schema type learning might be used by participants and that
cue-opacity or ambiguity is not a factor driving pattern learning.
Interestingly, this study does not attempt to reproduce the
characteristic in natural languages to have more singular than plural
forms in the input, nor that different nouns can vary in this respect
(e.g., _eyes_ being more often in the plural than _hammer_).

LaTourrette and Waxman (pp. 411-423) propose a conceptual account of
children's difficulties extending adjectives across basic-level kinds.
They compare children’s extensions of novel adjectives to ‘blobs of
stuff’ and ‘pictures of things’ (i.e. kinds) using vague images that
could represent objects such as combs. Children in the ‘blob’
condition tended to extend the novel adjective to a similar item more
often than children in the ‘picture’ condition, although both groups
got better over time, as well as in comparison to a control group who
were told the book was full of ‘pages’.  The authors conclude that
adjective extension is easier for children when they apply to
non-objects, which attain high levels of accuracy in comprehension.

Ma, Gao, and Zhou (pp. 436-442) explore sensitivity to tones in young
Mandarin learners during novel word learning and recognition, and test
whether young children aged three can distinguish tones 2, 3, and 4 on
novel items. They do but have more difficulties with T3, especially in
a sub-group of children, showing that they can use tone to learn new
lexical items but that T3 is more difficult. The authors speculate
that this might be related to the smaller saliency/differences between
T3 and T2 (which were paired in the task) or to the presence of tone
sandhi in Mandarin, where T3 becomes rising T2 in combination with
another T3.

Martohardjono, Phillips, Madsen, and Schwartz (pp. 452-465) attempt to
study heritage and second language (L2) Spanish-English speakers’
processing of Spanish errors using ERPs. Structures used are types 1),
where a head noun in the complex DP is ungrammatical in both English
and Spanish, and 2), where a syntactic complementizer is omitted,
which is grammatical in English though not Spanish.

1) _¿Qué vecino contó Juan *el chisme que robó el carro anoche?_
      ‘What neighbor did Juan say *the rumor that robbed the car last
night?’
2) _*¿Qué hermana confesó Inés ∅ (que) había comido la tarta?_
      ‘What sister did Inés confess (that) had eaten the cake?’

Unfortunately, the experiment includes serious biases, especially in
the second condition, which render data interpretation difficult, as
has been argued by Steinhauer and Drury (2012), when comparing two
conditions with different target word types.  In 2 this is _ había_ a
verb in sentences where _que_ is omitted vs. _que_ the relativizer in
sentences where it is not. This paradigm can cause differences in ERP
waves — the second being typically more negative (Marcinek et al,
2013) — which can bias the analysis. Furthermore, auditory cues to
ungrammaticality could play a role, as ungrammatical sentences were
produced without controlling for intonation or other low-level
auditory cues. This is patently obvious in Figure 1 (lower panel),
where we observe that the so-called N400 effect of ungrammaticality of
_Inés *había…_ starts BEFORE the presentation of _había…_ that is on
the baseline _Inés_, while the sentence is still grammatical. The same
problem can apply to condition 1) where the baseline appears to show
crossing lines (a ‘butterfly effect’) before the target window,
possibly enhancing the P600. The author’s interpretation of offline
judgments (which are generally inadequate in condition 2) as being
incoherent with the ERP data is thus flawed, i.e., it may be that no
automatic processing of the error was appropriately detected due to
this ERP design.

Marull (pp. 466-480) evaluates effects of language experience on L2
morphosyntactic integration and anticipation. Using visual world and
grammaticality judgment tasks, she attempts to provide
counter-evidence for the RAGE (Reduced Ability to Generate
Expectations) theory of L2 acquisition (Grüter & Rohde, 2013).
However, she does not include participant group as a between factor
and therefore cannot justify her separate analyses for L1 and L2
groups (Nieuwenhuis et al, 2011). Furthermore, her design is unclear:
Are all targets plural? What is the experimental/theoretical
justification for the two types of determiners being used? (The author
states “Crosslinguistic similarity” as being the reason and leaves it
to the reader to figure it out.) The interpretation of results is most
probably overstated, as statistical analyses are not convincing (e.g.,
using ANOVAs for small numbers of participants and extremely large
standard deviations in reaction time data, which signal intra-subject
variability that should be accounted for; cf. Baayen et al, 2008).

Meir & Armon-Lotem (pp. 495-508) present a study comparing bilingual
children with SLI to bilingual controls of the same age (6 years old),
but matched with children with SLI on their weaker language, thus
allowing for both age and language matching. They use the common
pairing of non-word repetition (NWR) and sentence repetition (SR)
tasks to evaluate three groups: SLI bilinguals speaking Russian and
Hebrew and two control groups of either Hebrew- or Russian-dominant
bilinguals, compared on their weaker language to children with SLI.
They find that error patterns are quite different in children with and
without SLI. Consonant cluster and syllable reduction are more common
in children with SLI than those without SLI, and many different
syntactic patterns are revealed. Unfortunately, it is hard to clearly
grasp error patterns, as they are presented as percentages, which is
inappropriate for frequency data. The statistics also seem inadequate.

Petroj (pp. 532-545) investigates article distribution in American
Sign Language (ASL) concurrent with whispered English. Studying
participants who are Children of Deaf Adults (CODAs) who
simultaneously learned ASL and English, she observes that the grammar
of ASL influences article use in whispered speech when blended with
ASL, which does not use articles. She shows that prosodic preferences
override syntactic constraints in English for determiner production in
whispered speech in these children.

Smeets (pp. 588-601) investigates ultimate attainment of L2 object
movement in Dutch, focusing on the syntax-discourse interface. She
observes that advanced English- and German- L2 learners of Dutch can
attain L1 levels of sensitivity to object vs. wide focus constraints
on object movement in non-canonical structures such as _Appels heeft
Bas gekocht_ ‘Apples has Bas bought’. Furthermore, in scrambled
sentences such as _dat Hans de secretaresse binnenkort zal ontslaan_
‘that Hans will fire the secretary soon’ with the object given (Is
there any news about the secretary?) versus wide focus (What did
Wouter say?), native and German-Dutch L2 speakers show preference for
the scrambled word order, but only a subset (4 of 15) of English-Dutch
L2 speakers do. Finally she tested interpretations of scrambling with
indefinite structures, which lead to specific readings, e.g. _De
entertainer heft een paar liedjes regelmatig gezongen_ ‘The
entertainer has regularly sung a few (specific) songs’. In this case,
10 of 15 English-Dutch L2 learners reach native-like readings (80%
correct or higher). These results show on the one hand that L2
speakers can reach native-like syntactic behavior but, on the other,
that some aspects of the syntax-discourse interface may be more
difficult. These cannot be attributed to a general bilingual
disadvantage, as German-Dutch L2 speakers performed as natives.

Terzi, Zafeiri, Marinis, and Francis study the use of object clitics
in narratives of high-functioning Greek-speaking children with Autism.
Their results show practically no differences between 20 children with
Autism (mean age 6:11) and 20 neurotypical children matched on their
receptive vocabulary and verbal intelligence (mean age 6;7). One
pattern that distinguishes the groups is a preference for subject
clitics in children with Autism. The statistical methods seem
inappropriate however, as t-tests are used for frequency data.

Tieu and Križ (pp. 651-664) investigate exhaustivity in French clefts
— _C’est le ballon qui est rouge_ ‘It’s the balloon that is red’ — and
homogeneity in plural definite descriptions — _Les ballons sont
rouges_ ‘The balloons are red’. In infelicitous contexts (where for
example, another object was also red in the cleft condition, or one of
the balloons was another color in the plural definite condition)
3-to-4-year-old children accepted them as true. 5-to-6-year-old
children accepted clefts more than definite descriptions, but even
adults accepted infelicitous clefts (∼ 50%), while rejecting
infelicitous definite descriptions. The authors conclude that French
children begin by interpreting clefts non-exhaustively and definite
plurals existentially, and that a homogeneous interpretation of
definite plurals emerges before exhaustivity (at ages where
English-and German-speaking children have acquired exhaustivity, at
least partially). However, the fact that adults also allow
non-exhaustive readings of the cleft structure argues for a second
non-exhaustive reading for clefts in French (as control sentences with
‘only’ were correctly interpreted as exhaustive).

Veenstra, Antoniou, Katsos, and Kissine (pp. 706-717) study attraction
effects and executive control in monolingual Dutch and sequential
bilingual French-Dutch children aged 11. They were asked to describe
pictures where the head noun matched, or not, in number with the local
noun (e.g., _De cirkel/s naast de driehoek/en is/zijn blau_ ‘The
circle/s next to the triangle/s is/are blue’). No bilingual advantage
on executive control tasks was found. In fact, the monolingual group
showed better scores on the Corsi block forward subtest. Both
monolinguals and bilinguals showed attraction effects, i.e., verb
agreement error triggered by the intervening noun when mismatched in
number with the head noun. Finally, backward digit span and backward
Corsi block scores negatively predicted agreement errors (over both
groups), that is, better scores on these measures were correlated with
fewer attraction errors.

White, Goad, Su, Smeets, Mortazavinia, Garcia, and Brambati Guzzo (pp.
744-752) present preliminary data on the effects of prosody in pronoun
interpretation in Italian in sentences of the type _Lorenzo ha scritto
a Roberto (#) quando Ø/lui si è trasferito a Torino_ ‘Lorenzo wrote to
Roberto (#) when (he) moved to Turin.’ They show that 1) L2 and L1
speakers of Italian have different interpretations of overt and null
subjects as referring to a preceding subject (Lorenzo) or object
(Roberto) in the sentence, or even some other discourse referent, 2)
the presence of a pause before the null pronoun can promote an object
referent interpretation, and 3) the presence of contrastive stress on
overt pronouns appears to interact with (no-)pause effects on their
interpretation.

Yatsushiro, Sauerland, and Alexiadou (pp. 753-765) present an
incredible amount of crosslinguistic data (18 languages form Finnic,
Semitic, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, and Romance families) in
support of the unmarkedness of plural. Interestingly, they include
French, which does not have overt plural marking on the noun (i.e.,
the –s in only written but not usually pronounced), so it is unclear
whether the authors wanted to test plural marking on nouns only or on
other structures (such as French determiners, which do bear number
information on the vowel). In any case, the cross-linguistic data are
not really discussed, while the authors focus rather on two German
experiments for singular markedness interpretation, which they argue
correlate, albeit without statistical support or any convincing
illustration (e.g., a scatter plot that distributes the data widely
across the plot) or clear discussion of their impact.

EVALUATION

The papers in these volumes are directed at researchers and graduate
students in language acquisition and processing. The methodological
approaches and theoretical assumptions are quite varied in the papers,
making the papers extremely varied in their scope and coherence with
the rest of the volume. Because of their short length, some background
might be necessary to be able to appreciate their contents. They are
all written as ‘stand-alone’ papers, and are thus of value as short
scientific papers, especially in a research seminar type setting.
However, undergraduates could also benefit from these papers,
especially if put in the context of other readings with theoretical
and methodological grounding for them. I often use BUCLD proceedings
as short discussion papers in seminars or even exam papers to help
students develop their ability to comment on scientific articles in
domains or populations that are relevant to their work (in my case,
future SLPs).

Having read a number of previous BUCLD proceedings, I can state that
the quality of the papers has generally been maintained or has risen
over time, at least in terms of presentation. However, as usual, there
is high variability in the quality of data analysis or even scientific
discussion. This is mainly due to a traditional lack of editorial
oversight. As I have mentioned before, the most appealing quality of
these papers is that they report on very recent research, which is
often not yet available elsewhere and can be cutting edge. This can
also have some downsides: Chapter quality is quite variable, with some
research still ongoing, some methodologies questionable, or
theoretical assumptions not explicit. In particular, some statistical
analyses are appropriately developed and presented while others are
inadequate (for example, the recent move to mixed-models in R (see
e.g., Baayen et al, 2008) is quite evident, but model presentation
often lacks basic details such as AIC information, while others
perform t-tests on frequency data, which is completely inappropriate).
Some analyses (whether on response, reaction-time, or even ERP data)
do not check for group interaction of effects, before breaking down
analyses into different partitions (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2011). Some
papers do not even bother to check for group effects, and some authors
apparently do not spell check their papers. I have made this comment
before about the BUCLD proceedings
(https://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-55.html). I think it is high
time that an editorial review is performed on papers before they are
published. This practice has been established in much smaller
student-run conferences elsewhere, e.g., VOCUM (http://vocum.ca/en/),
and allows for some level of peer review. Because of the new policy
allowing all presenters to submit papers, I fear that flawed papers
might become more common in this publication. However, I must state
that, in general, the quality of the papers is quite high and they can
present insightful and inspirational research.


Baayen, Robert Harald, Doug J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008.
Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and
Items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390-412.

Franck, Julie, Stephany Cronel-Ohayon, Laurence Chillier, Ulrich H.
Frauenfelder, Cornelia Hamann, Luigi Rizzi & Pascal Zesiger. 2004.
Normal and Pathological Development of Subject-Verb Agreement in
Speech Production: A Study on French Children. Journal of
Neurolinguistics 17(2-3). 147-80.

Grüter, Theres & Hannah Rohde. L2 Processing Is Affected by Rage:
Evidence from Reference Resolution. In 12th conference on Generative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA). University of
Florida, FL, 2013.

Marcinek, Bradley T., Karsten Steinhauer, Phaedra Royle & John E.
Drury. 2013. Syntactic Violations for Content Verses Function Words in
Reading: Erp Evidence. In Society for the Neurobiology of Language.
San Diego, CA. http://bradmarcinek.net/files/Marcinek_Steinhauer_Royle
_Drury_SNL2013.pdf

Nieuwenhuis, Sander, Birte U Forstmann & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2011.
Erroneous Analyses of Interactions in Neuroscience: A Problem of
Significance. Nature Neuroscience 14. 1105-07.

Pourquié, Marie & Phaedra Royle. (in preparation). Argument Structure
and Verb Inflection in French Sli.

Slabakova, Roumyana. (2008). Meaning in the Second Language. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Sorace, Antonella. (2000). Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with
Intransitive Verbs. Language 76(4). 859-890.

Steinhauer, Karsten & John E. Drury. (2012). On the early
left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language
120(2). 135-162.

Proceedings of the 41st Annual BUCLD, Vol. 1

Abed Ibrahim, Lina & Cornelia Hamann. Bilingual Arabic-German and
Turkish-German Children with and without Specific Language Impairment:
Comparing Performance in Sentence and Nonword Repetition Tasks. (pp.
1-17).

Bentea, Anamaria & Stephanie Durrleman. Now You Hear It, Now You
Don't: Number Mismatch in the Comprehension of Relative Clauses in
French. (pp. 60-73).

Bernier, Dana E. & Katherine S. White. What's a Foo? Toddlers Are Not
Tolerant of Other Children's Mispronunciations. (pp. 88-100).

Boyce, Veronica, Athulya Aravind & Martin Hackl. Lexical and Syntactic
Effects on Auxiliary Selection: Evidence from Child French. (pp.
101-113).

Brooks, Patricia J., Josita Maouene, Kevin Sailor & Liat
Seiger-Gardner. Modeling the Semantic Networks of School-Age Children
with Specific Language Impairment and Their Typical Peers. (pp.
114-127).

Choi, Sea Hee & Tania Ionin. Acquisition and Processing of Mass Nouns
in L2-English by L2 Learners from Generalized Classifier Languages:
Evidence for the Role of Atomicity. (pp. 154-167).

Jensen, Isabel Nadine, Roumyana Slabakova & Marit Westergaard. The
Bottleneck Hypothesis in L2 Acquisition: A Study of L1 Norwegian
Speakers' Knowledge of Syntax and Morphology in L2 English. (pp.
333-346).

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. Learning a Subtractive Morphological System:
Statistics and Representations. (pp. 357-372).

Proceedings of the 41st Annual BUCLD, Vol. 2

LaTourrette, Alexander & Sandra Waxman. A Conceptual Account of
Children's Difficulties Extending Adjectives across Basic-Level Kinds.
(pp. 411-423).

Ma, Weiyi, Liqun Gao & Peng Zhou. A Reduced Sensitivity to Tones in
Young Tone Learners' Word Recognition. (pp. 436-442)

Martohardjono, Gita, Ian Phillips, Christen N. Madsen II & Richard G.
Schwartz. Cross-linguistic Influence in Bilingual Processing: An ERP
Study. (pp. 452-465).

Marull, Crystal. Second Language Processing Efficiency: Experience and
Cognitive Effects on L2 Morphosyntactic Integration and Anticipation.
(pp. 466-480).

Meir, Natalia & Sharon Armon-Lotem. Delay or Deviance: Old Question –
New Evidence from Bilingual Children with Specific Language Impairment
(SLI). (pp. 495-508).

Petroj, Vanessa. Article Distribution in English/American Sign
Language (ASL) Whispered Code-Blended Speech. (pp. 532-545).

Smeets, Liz. Ultimate Attainment at the Syntax-Discourse Interface:
The Acquisition of Object Movement in Dutch. (pp. 588-601).

Terzi, Arhonto, Anthi Zafeiri, Thodoros Marinis & Konstantinos
Francis. Object Clitics in the Narratives of High-Functioning Children
with Autism. (pp. 637-650).

Tieu, Lyn & Manuel Križ. Connecting the Exhaustivity of Clefts and the
Homogeneity of Plural Definite Descriptions in Acquisition. (pp.
651-664).

Veenstra, Alma, Kyriakos Antoniou, Napoleon Katsos & Mikhail Kissine.
The Role of Executive Control in Agreement Attraction in Monolingual
and Bilingual Children. (pp. 706-717).

White, Lydia, Heather Goad, Jiajia Su, Liz Smeets, Marzieh
Mortazavinia, Guilherme D. Garcia & Natália Brambati Guzzo. Prosodic
Effects on Pronoun Interpretation in Italian. (pp. 744-752).

Yatsushiro, Kazuko, Uli Sauerland & Artemis Alexiadou. The
Unmarkedness of Plural: Crosslinguistic Data. (pp. 753-765).

Zaretsky, Elena. Cross-linguistic Transfer: The Role of L1 Grammatical
Morphology in L2 Reading Comprehension among ELLs from Low SES. (pp.
794-805).

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Phaedra Royle holds a Ph.D in linguistics, is a full professor at the
School of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology at the Université de
Montréal, and is a member of the Centre for Research on Brain,
Language and Music (CRBLM). Her interests lie in psycholinguistics,
neurolinguistics, language disorders, language acquisition,
morphology, and morphosyntax, mostly in French populations with and
without learning challenges



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please consider donating to the Linguist List https://give.myiu.org/iu-bloomington/I320011968.html


LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

American Dialect Society/Duke University Press http://dukeupress.edu

Bloomsbury Publishing (formerly The Continuum International Publishing Group) http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge Scholars Publishing http://www.cambridgescholars.com/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Dictionary Society of North America http://dictionarysociety.com/

Edinburgh University Press www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

Georgetown University Press http://www.press.georgetown.edu

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Linguistic Association of Finland http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications

Springer Nature http://www.springer.com

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-34-2651
----------------------------------------------------------