The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment
Abstract
This article reviews several recent studies suggesting that — contrary to a widespread belief — adult monolingual native speakers of the same language do not share the same mental grammar. The studies examined various aspects of linguistic knowledge, including inflectional morphology, passives, quantifiers, and more complex constructions with subordinate clauses. The findings suggest that, in some cases, language learners attend to different cues in the input and end up with different grammars; in others, some speakers extract only fairly specific, ‘local’ generalizations which apply to particular subclasses of items while others acquire more abstract rules which apply ‘across the board’. At least some of these differences are education-related: more educated speakers appear to acquire more general rules, possibly as a result of more varied linguistic experience. These findings have interesting consequences for research on bilingualism, particularly for research on ultimate attainment in second language acquisition, as well as important methodological implications for all language sciences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 5,435 · cited 2×
“It is widely acknowledged that explicit learning plays a significant role in L2 learning, at least at the level of “noticing” (Schmidt 1990); however, the general consensus is that grammatical development in L1 is virtually entirely implicit, largely because young children are believed to lack the…”
BackgroundA capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Language Acquisition and Use: Learning and Applying Probabilistic Constraints
Seidenberg, M. S. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1599 · Cited by 338
THE EVOLVING CONTEXT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109090275 · Cited by 335 · cited 2×
“Conversely, in L2 research, the fact that second language learners do not converge is sometimes used to argue that L2 learning is “fundamentally different” from first language acquisition (Bley-Vroman 1990, 2009).”
BackgroundDĄBROWSKA, E., & SZCZERBIŃSKI, M. (2006) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s0305000906007471 · Cited by 189
Self-citation
Cited by
The Acquisition of Heritage Languages
Montrul, S. (2015) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139030502 · Cited by 900
Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2018) · International Journal of Bilingualism · doi:10.1177/1367006916654355 · Cited by 309
Plasticity, Variability and Age in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism
Birdsong, D. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00081 · Cited by 205
The scope of usage-based theory
Ibbotson, P. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00255 · Cited by 113
Metadata
- Authors
- Dąbrowska, E.
- Venue
- Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2012-09-07
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 219-253
- ISSN
- 1879-9264 (ISSN-L)
- 1879-9272
- OpenAlex
- W2133264688
- Cited by
- 423
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 42.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
