The dynamic nature of bilingualism

Liliana Sánchez
Rutgers University

1. The dynamic nature of bilingualism

For second language and bilingual acquisition studies, Schmid and Köpke (2017;
henceforth S&K) highlight the prevalence of a perspective in which the L1 re-
mains fairly stable, and the L2 is more dynamic as it experiences changes in devel-
opment. They question the stability of the L1 in contexts in which there is frequent
activation of both languages. S&K’s (2017) general point is a timely reminder that
multilingualism from an individual perspective is dynamic in nature. Multi-/bilin-
gual speakers’ lives involve fluctuations in access to language input and communi-
cative interaction in both languages (Grosjean, 2015). As S&K point out, by virtue
of conceptualization and generalized practices, current research focuses mostly on
the effects of bilingualism on one language (Montrul, 2010; Montrul et. al, 2008)
rather than on crosslinguistic effects for both languages (Sánchez 2004; Putnam &
Sánchez 2013; Malt et al., 2015, a.o.).
To arrive at a linguistic theory of bilingualism that is not focused only on
unidirectional effects or on specific subtypes of bilinguals, we need a thorough
understanding of how different language components interact within and across
languages when accessed by a bilingual mind. In analyzing the factors involved in
attrition, S&K discuss crosslinguistic (dis-)similarity, exposure, and co-activation
as well as the role of age of acquisition. In the next sections, I present a preliminary
attempt to formulate a model that integrates, as S&K suggest, crosslinguistic simi-
larities and differences, exposure, and coactivation of both languages.

2. Exposure and coactivation in the lexicon and phonology

In discussing evidence of coactivation from studies on lexical access and re-

trieval based on online tasks, S&K introduce the notion that coactivation is
the starting point of the dynamic nature of bilingualism that may result in bi-
directional crosslinguistic effects. If one assumes a Jackendoffian approach to a

Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7:6 (2017), 754–758.  doi 10.1075/lab.00019.san

issn 1879–9264 / e-issn 1879–9272 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
 The dynamic nature of bilingualism 755

parallel architecture of human languages (Jackendoff, 1997), and in particular

Jackendoff ’s (2011) proposal that words are interface rules, the connection be-
tween coactivation in lexical studies and crosslinguistic influence at the syntactic
or phonological levels is not surprising. In this view, a word such ate is an idio-
syncratic rule that links phonological features /eIt/, syntactic features (past tense)
and conceptual meaning (ingesting food). In the mind of a Spanish-English bi-
lingual individual, coactivation may involve the English word and, at least, two
corresponding words in Spanish: com-ió (perfective) and com-ía (imperfective),
each with its bundle of features.
Depending on language dominance and frequency of activation, one could
hypothesize that coactivation and difficulties inhibiting a subset of syntactic fea-
tures could lead to the emergence of new patterns of assembly (Lardiere 1998,
2005). In the example above, new aspectual distinctions may be mapped onto dif-
ferent phonological forms (PF) in English or mapping of aspectual distinctions in
Spanish may be restructured to favor only one PF. A third possibility is restructur-
ing in both languages. Evidence for this comes from Quechua-Spanish bilinguals
who develop evidentiality values in Spanish past-tense forms and aspectual val-
ues in Quechua past tense forms (Sánchez 2004). These new patterns of assembly
can, in turn, generate new interface rules that may extend to pragmatic knowledge
(Sorace 2009). It is therefore not unreasonable to view coactivation as the locus
where permeability across grammars can take place. In fact, non-selective activa-
tion of features from both languages can be viewed as one of the main factors in
crosslinguistic influence (Mayer & Sánchez, forthcoming; Perez-Cortes, Putnam
& Sánchez, 2017; Putnam, Perez Cortes & Sánchez, forthcoming).
As S&K correctly point out, attriters and heritage speakers are part of the con-
tinuum of bilingualism that ranges from bilinguals with sustained lexical access
and activation in both languages to bilinguals with limited access and activation
in one of the languages (Mathison, 2016). These different levels of access can be
incorporated into a single model for bilinguals across the continuum. Attriters,
heritage speakers and bilinguals in instructional contexts may differ in frequen-
cy of access to words as interface rules in the general input. Attriters and heri-
tage speakers exhibit variability in activation for production and comprehension
processes (Hulsen 2000, Perez-Cortes, 2016; Putnam & Sánchez, 2013; Putnam,
Perez-Cortes & Sánchez, to appear). Activation and inhibition may be more or
less challenging for different groups depending on (dis-)similarity across lan-
guages in features (phonological and syntactic) as well as in combinatorial rules
or constraints. In online processing, these challenges may lead to crosslinguis-
tic influence especially if there is non-selective activation. In the case of heritage
speakers, there is ample evidence that their performance can be variable, although
it is higher than chance level (Montrul 2016). These findings can be accounted
756 Liliana Sánchez

for in part as a result of better performance with lexical items of high frequency
(Giancaspro, 2017). Attriters also exhibit optionality and lexical frequency effects
(Hulsen, 2000).

3. Sketch of a new model

Given the relevance of crosslinguistic similarities, exposure, and coactivation

brought forth by S&K, I would like to propose some preliminary ideas to incor-
porate input, coactivation, and grammatical representation in a single model (see
Figure 1). In such a model, changes in exposure to input and levels of (co-)activa-
tion can have an effect on the integration of features from different language com-
ponents in online processing and on the representation of words as interface rules.
In this model, representation is not conceived of as fixed or discrete but as a con-
tinuum of assembly of interface rules so that lexical items with higher frequency
of activation may have integrated syntactic features not activated in lexical items
with lower frequency of activation. While the model incorporates most factors
discussed by S&K, it would depart from S&K’s proposal to do away with the dis-
tinction between a representational level and processing. Focusing on online and
transient versus representational and permanent crosslinguistic effects may lead
us into the path of trying to find an artificial cut-off point that separates activation
for production and comprehension from representation. At the same time, if acti-
vation is systematically characterized by some level of interaction across language
components and languages, one may see long-term effects in bilinguals that are
not observed in monolingual populations. Making the representational level sus-
ceptible to change along a continuum allows us to view it from a dynamic perspec-
tive. Age of acquisition effects can be part of the model, but it is difficult to isolate
their impact given the substantial evidence of reassembly among early bilinguals
who are heritage speakers and of attrition among late bilinguals cited by S&K.

Integration of Continuum
linguistic of interface
Input (Co-)activation components as rules:
interface rules Bilingual
for processing Grammars

Figure 1.  Sketch of a dynamic model of Bilingual/Heritage/Attrition grammars

 The dynamic nature of bilingualism 757

References
Giancaspro, D. (2017). Heritage Speakers’ Production and Comprehension of Mood Morphology
in Spanish. Rutgers University. ms.
Grosjean, F. (2015). Bicultural bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(5), 572–586.
Hulsen, M. (2000). Language loss and language processing: three generations of Dutch migrants
in New Zealand, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty?: Two views. Language, 87(3), 586–
624.
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar.
Second language research, 14(4), 359–375.
Lardiere, D. (2005). On morphological competence. In L. Dekydtspotter, R. Sprouse & A.
Liljestrand (Eds.) Proceedings of the 7th generative approaches to second language acquisi-
tion conference (GASLA 2004). (178–192). Somerville: Cascadilla.
Malt, B. C., Li, P., Pavlenko, A., Zhu, H., & Ameel, E. (2015). Bidirectional lexical interaction in
late immersed Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 86–104.
Mathison, L. (2016). Retrieval latency and word frequency of L1 verbal fluency in late L2 bi-
linguals. Paper presented at the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States
(LACUS) Forum, St. Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia (Aug. 2-5).
Mayer, E. & Sánchez, L. (forthcoming) Feature variability in the bilingual-monolingual contin-
uum: Clitics in Bilingual Quechua-Spanish, Bilingual Shipibo-Spanish and in Monolingual
Andean Spanish. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Montrul, S. (2010). Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage
speakers. Second Language Research, 26(3), 293–327.
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learn-
ers and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language
Learning, 58(3), 503–553.
Montrul, S. (2016). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Perez-Cortes, S. (2016). Acquiring obligatory and variable mood selection: Spanish heritage
speakers and L2 learners’ performance in desideratives and reported speech contexts.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers University.
Pérez Cortés, S., Putnam, M., & Sánchez, L. (2017). Incomplete Access: The difficulties of access-
ing features and representations in Heritage Languages in production and comprehension.
Penn State U., Rutgers U. ms.
Putnam, M. and L. Sánchez. (2013). What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition?  –
A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 3(4), 378–504.
Putnam, M., Perez-Cortes, S. & Sánchez, L. (forthcoming). Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (in
Language Attrition Contexts). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sánchez, L. (2004). Functional Convergence in the Tense, Evidentiality and Aspectual Systems
of Quechua-Spanish Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 7(2). 147–162.
Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (2017). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual
development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(6), 637–667.
Sorace, A. (2009). Theoretical and methodological interfaces in research on L2 ultimate attain-
ment. Keynote address at GASLA 10 conference, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
758 Liliana Sánchez

Author’s address
Liliana Sánchez
Department of Spanish and Portuguese
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Academic Building, 15 Seminary Place, 5th floor
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
USA
lsanchez@rutgers.edu