| 1 |
Bilingualism and Aging: Implications for (Delaying) Neurocognitive Decline
|
|
|
|
In: Front Hum Neurosci (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
Gender attraction in sentence comprehension
|
|
|
|
In: Glossa: a journal of general linguistics; Vol 6, No 1 (2021); 20 ; 2397-1835 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Bilingualism is a long-term cognitively challenging experience that modulates metabolite concentrations in the healthy brain
|
|
|
|
In: Scientific Reports ; 11 (2021). - 7090. - Springer Nature. - eISSN 2045-2322 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
Determinants of bilingualism predict dynamic changes in resting state EEG oscillations
|
|
|
|
In: Brain and Language ; 223 (2021). - 105030. - Elsevier. - ISSN 0093-934X. - eISSN 1090-2155 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 5 |
On the status of transfer in adult third language acquisition of early bilinguals
|
|
|
|
In: PLoS One (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
Parsing preferences and individual differences in non-native sentence processing: evidence from eye-movements
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
What Have We Learned About Bilingualism? Regarding Nichols et al. (2020)
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
The cognitive and neurological effects of bilingualism on healthy ageing and the progression of dementia: a longitudinal study ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
Event related potentials at initial exposure in third language acquisition : Implications from an artificial mini-grammar study
|
|
|
|
In: Journal of Neurolinguistics ; 56 (2020). - 100939. - Elsevier. - ISSN 0911-6044. - eISSN 1873-8052 (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 11 |
A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 13 |
Low proficiency does not mean ab initio: A methodological footnote for linguistic transfer studies
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 14 |
Terminology Matters On Theoretical Grounds Too! : Coherent Grammars Cannot Be Incomplete
|
|
|
|
In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition ; 41 (2019), 2. - S. 257-264. - ISSN 0272-2631. - eISSN 1470-1545 (2019)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 15 |
Redefining bilingualism as a spectrum of experiences that differentially affects brain structure and function
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 16 |
Brain adaptations and neurological indices of processing in adult Second Language Acquisition: challenges for the Critical Period Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Stemming from the seminal work of Penfield and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967), a major question in adult language learning studies—indeed one that transcends all paradigms—has involved the extent to which adult language acquisition and processing is destined to be fundamentally different in adulthood compared to childhood. The basis of the original claims of the Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967) regards neurological maturation after puberty; brain plasticity is said to be lost or greatly reduced, rendering the mechanisms that underlie language learning necessarily distinct and thus disadvantaging adults. No one denies that child and adult developmental paths differ; however, the evidence that is used to support critical/sensitive period effects are decisively not clear (see e.g., Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam 2009; Long, 2005, 2013; DeKeyser, 2000 as compared to Rothman, 2008; Bialystok and Hakuta 1994; Birdsong and Molis, 2001; Birdsong and Vanhove, 2016; Birdsong, 2014 for review and opposing views). With few exceptions, the vast majority of “relevant evidence” on the matter comes from behavioral experimentation or spontaneous production, most often from L2 populations not exposed to the target language in a way similar to child L1 acquirers (e.g., adults tend to be classroom learners and children tend to be naturalistic learners). In the past two decades, technologies have progressed that permit us to have a renewed look at the Critical Period debate. That the healthy brain remains plastic throughout the lifespan is no longer controversial within neurocognitive psychology (see Fuchs and Flügge, 2014 for review). And so, the neuro-maturational basis of the Critical Period Hypothesis advocated originally in Lenneberg (1967) and assumed by many ever since is necessarily challenged. In this chapter, we focus on how neurolinguistic evidence—EEG/ERP and (f)MRI data—can help us adjudicate between various views regarding the Critical Period debate and how to best account for the ubiquitously noted differences that align with age of acquisition effects in language acquisition/processing.
|
|
URL: https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/76040/1/Chapter_Brain_adaptations_final.pdf
https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/76040/
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 17 |
Formal linguistics approaches to adult second language acquisition and processing
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 18 |
Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 19 |
Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies : Can it actually inform linguistic/ language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 20 |
Language dominance affects bilingual performance and processing outcomes in adulthood
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
