Session 2C

Grammatical attrition refers to restructuring of L1 grammatical representations due to a change in a speaker's primary linguistic data (PLD) in adulthood. This study seeks to contribute to the theoretical modelling of this phenomenon by testing a recent and hitherto untested generative model of grammatical attrition: The Attrition via Acquisition Model (Hicks and Domínguez, 2020a, 2020b)
In the model, the possibility of attrition is determined by the availability of intake (processed input) and the potential for Feature Reassembly (FR) (Lardiere, 2009) of a previously acquired L1 structure. Two broad predictions follow this. Firstly, attrition is facilitated where the L2 is more similar to the L1. Secondly, attrition is in principle only possible for an L1 structure which has an analogous/equivalent L2 form which differs in its respective feature specifications, allowing for FR and thus attrition of the L1 structure. Based on discussions within Hicks and Domínguez (2020b), this study also investigates the hypothesis that attrition is further facilitated for L1 structures which would need to undergo less complex FR to match the feature specifications of the corresponding L2 structure. 
To investigate the role of intake in attrition, this study tests three groups of L1 German late-sequential bilinguals with minimum 10 years residence in either the Netherlands, the UK, or Spain, starting in adulthood. To investigate the role of FR, two grammatical structures per language are investigated. The structures differ in the relative complexity of FR required for them to attrite (see table below). 


Experimental Design and Predictions:



Properties are tested by means of bimodal Acceptability Judgement Tasks (AJTs). Each AJT tests two properties and has a German version and an equivalent in the corresponding L2. Potential attriters complete both L1 and L2 versions of the relevant AJT, which allows further investigation of the relationship between L2 acquisition and L1 attrition. As well as a native German control group, this study also uses three control groups consisting of native speakers of Dutch, English or Spanish. All controls complete the AJTs version(s) for their respective L1s only. Comparison of the attriters' German AJT results to both the L1 and relevant L2 control group results allows us to confirm statistically not only whether the attriters' L1 grammars diverge from L1 grammars, but also whether they converge on L2 patterns for these properties. There will be 20-30 participants per group. Potential attriters' AJT results will be compared statistically both within and across language groups to investigate the role of intake and FR in attrition. Online data collection is underway, and complete results are expected by the time of the conference. 


References:
Hicks, G. and Domínguez, L. (2020a) 'A model for grammatical attrition', Keynote Article in Second Language Research, 36(2), pp. 143–165. doi: 10.177/0267658319862011.
Hicks, G. and Domínguez, L. (2020b) 'Modelling L1 grammatical attrition through language acquisition: A reply to comments', Second Language Research, 36(2), pp. 231–239. doi: 10.177/026765831989785.
Lardiere, D. (2009) 'Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition', Second Language Research, 25(2), pp. 173–227. doi: 10.1177/0267658308100283.


Suggested questions for Doctoral Workshop discussion: 
What is the importance of the Input/Intake distinction in attrition and acquisition?How has participant recruitment and data collection been carried out entirely online? What steps have been taken to ensure data quality has been maintained? Why is a Feature Reassembly approach adopted, and how can we formalise the complexity of the Feature Reassembly 'task' in attrition and acquisition? 

Much research in first language (L1) attrition examines the changes that happen in the L1 as a result of long-term use and exposure to a second language (L2), usually in the context of migration to an English-speaking country (e.g., Schmid, 2002). Studies scrutinising changes in L1 English are thus rare, with most research focusing on only one L1 domain while disregarding others (cf., syntax in Tsimpli et al., 2004; the lexicon in Linck et al., 2009), often also overlooking what happens in the L2. This study hence bridges the examination of L1 changes and L2 acquisition by looking at three language domains in parallel (i.e. the lexicon, the syntax-discourse interface, and prosody) within the same English-speaking (adult) learners of Italian. To further disentangle the effects of L2 immersion from L2 proficiency, we test one group of highly-proficient classroom-based learners in the UK, and one group of long-term expats in Italy. For lexical retrieval, we use verbal fluency tasks in both languages, and adapt a translation-recognition task from Sunderman & Kroll (2006); for the syntax-discourse interface (cf. Sorace and Filiaci, 2006), we test the resolution of ambiguous pronouns and relative-clause attachment through a self-paced reading task in both languages; for prosody, we analyse perceived relative prominence in speakers' responses in a picture-naming task adapted from Krahmer and Swerts (2001) in both languages. We gather background measures with a detailed language experience questionnaire (LEAP-Q integrated with questions probing attitudes and motivation), language proficiency tests (LexTALE and LexITA), as well as cognitive measures (a reading-span task for working memory). Along with logistic regressions and linear mixed models used to analyse data in each domain, we carry out a final analysis to synthesise all results to ultimately understand the relationship between L2 acquisition and L1 change across language domains within the same bilingual individuals.1


Keywords: second language acquisition, late bilingualism, first language attrition, lexical retrieval, interface structures, prosody


1The data is being analysed as of January 2022. Data analysis will be completed by the time of the Conference in August 2022.


References
Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2001). On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication, 34(4), 391–405.
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological science, 20(12), 1507–1515. 
Schmid, M. (2002). First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance: The case of German Jews in Anglophone countries. 
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368.
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An Investigation of Lexical Form, Meaning, and Grammatical Class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 387–422. 
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. & 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(3), 257-277.

Speech fluency is an essential part of second language (L2) proficiency and assessment. In second language acquisition (SLA) research, fluency refers to the smoothness and effortlessness of speech (Lennon, 1990), and it has traditionally been examined with respect to three dimensions: objective temporal features of speech (utterance fluency), subjective listener ratings of fluency (perceived fluency), and cognitive processes underlying speech production (cognitive fluency; Segalowitz, 2010). There has also been a growing research interest in the connections between first language (L1) and L2 utterance fluency (e.g., Duran-Karaoz & Tavakoli, 2020; Peltonen, 2018), but examining learners' speech fluency across multiple first and target languages (L2, L3…) and cross-linguistic influences on L2 fluency have thus far received little attention. In particular, the potential influence of L1 speaking style on L2 and L3 perceived fluency has not yet been investigated. The present study addresses these gaps by providing a multilingual perspective on fluency by examining the effects of cross-linguistic differences and individual speaking style on both L2 and L3 perceived fluency across typologically different L1s (Finnish, Swedish).
The first data set in the study (collected in 2020–2021) consists of speech samples from Finnish-speaking (n = 20; Group 1) and Finnish-Swedish bilingual (n = 10; Group 2) university students, who all provided monologue samples in Finnish (L1), English (L2) and Swedish (L3 in Group 1, L1 in Group 2). The second data set (collected in spring 2022) consists of fluency assessments of the L2 and L3 speech samples from pre-service teachers of English and Swedish. The study employs a unique research design where half of the raters have access to the learners' L1 speech (experimental group) while half base their assessments solely on L2/L3 speech (control group). 
Research questions are:
To what extent are L2 and L3 utterance fluency measures correlated with L2 and L3 fluency ratings?
How does learners' L1 background influence their L2 fluency assessments?
How does information about learners' L1 speaking style influence their L2 and L3 fluency assessments?
The data analyses will focus on the correlations between fluency ratings and utterance fluency measures based on the speech samples (articulation rate and frequency and duration of mid-clause silent pauses and corrections) and the differences in ratings depending on the learners' L1 background and between rater groups (experimental vs. control group). The analyses will be completed before the conference, and preliminary results will be discussed in the presentation.
Questions for the discussant: How well do the chosen research methods match the research questions? What other analysis methods could be applied to the data set?
References:
Duran-Karaoz, Z., & Tavakoli, P. (2020). Predicting L2 fluency from L1 fluency behavior: The case of L1 Turkish and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 671–695. 
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387–417.
Peltonen P. (2018). Exploring connections between first and second language fluency: A mixed methods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 676-692. 
Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.