Sorace's ExAPP plenary


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sorace's ExAPP plenary

  1. 1. Focus of this talk VARIATION IN ANAPHORIC •  Variation due to the interplay of linguisticEXPRESSIONS 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 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. 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 10Division 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. 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] 16Underspecification 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. 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. 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. 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 subjectsMonolinguals Italian-Spanish bilinguals Italian-English bilinguals Monolinguals Italian-Spanish bilinguals 1 1 0.8 0.8 1 1 10.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.60.6 0.6 0.6 null target null target 0.4 0.4 null target null target null target null competitor null competitor0.4 0.4 0.4 null null 0.2 0.2 null0.2 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. 7. Are there differences between monolinguals Spanish – Overt subjects and bilinguals in the interpretation of overtMonolinguals Italian-Spanish bilinguals pronouns? •  In both age groups the Spanish-Italian bilinguals start fixating more on the target at 2200ms after 1 1 pronoun onset0.8 0.8 •  For the monolinguals more fixations on the target0.6 0.6 start later at 2800ms after pronoun onset. overt target overt target0.4 0.40.2 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. 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 sameLet’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. 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. 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. 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 andFiliaci, 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). childrens sensitivity to specificity and genericity: evidence fromHopp, 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. AppliedKaiser, 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 andMargaza, 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 LanguageSorace, 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