The impact of second-language experience on bilingual reading across the adult life-span
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading, like many other acquired skills, is developed and refined through extensive formal instruction and practice. However, bilinguals, by virtue of knowing and using two or more languages, necessarily have less first- (L1) and second-language (L2) reading experience than monolinguals who, by definition, read in one language exclusively. Thus, an important question for the study of bilingualism and language generally is how changes in L2 experience affect reading in both the L1 and the L2. While it stands to reason that increased L2 experience should relate to enhanced reading fluency in the L2, it is less clear whether L1 reading fluency should also be affected. Indeed, a commonly held belief within linguistics is that L1 skills of any kind, once acquired, are immune to the impact of L2 experience, particularly in adulthood. However, to the extent that life-long experience can adaptively update the representation and access of complex linguistic knowledge, we would expect L1 and L2 skills to trade-off to some degree as a function of increasing L2 experience. To this end, the present thesis uses eye movement recordings to investigate whether such a trade-off in L1/L2 reading occurs for French-English bilingual younger and older adults, who vary continuously in current L2 experience. The studies presented in this thesis suggest that greater current L2 experience among bilingual younger adults strengthens L2 reading, and more interestingly, weakens L1 reading—contradicting the commonly held belief that L1 skills are immune to experience-dependent change in adulthood. Of note, experience-dependent changes in reading are attenuated for bilingual older adults—suggesting that accumulated life-long L1/L2 experience might counter the influence of current language experience, particularly when processing the more frequently used L1. Accordingly, the impact of current L2 experience on L1/L2 reading varies according to which end of the adult life-span bilinguals are situated. Future research should more closely examine whether the findings observed here occur for other bilingual populations (e.g., children) and other language domains (e.g., production).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".