Task effects and the yes-bias in heritage language bilingualism

This study investigated three key issues in heritage language (HL) research. Previous research shows HL speakers have an advantage on oral production tasks compared to L2 speakers who instead perform better on written tasks. Furthermore, both L2 and HL speakers are claimed to have a yes-bias towards...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism 2024-03, Vol.27 (3), p.389-409
Main Authors: Romano, Francesco, Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bias
Bilingualism
Grammaticality
Heritage language
heritage language bilingualism
Italian language
Language dominance
Morphology
Priming
Reaction time
Swedish language
Tasks effects
yes-bias
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study investigated three key issues in heritage language (HL) research. Previous research shows HL speakers have an advantage on oral production tasks compared to L2 speakers who instead perform better on written tasks. Furthermore, both L2 and HL speakers are claimed to have a yes-bias towards retaining ungrammaticality in GJTs. Finally, the morphological domain has been shown to be as problematic for HL as L2 speakers but research in lesser-known languages is needed. Adult L1, L2, and HL speakers of Italian were compared on an oral priming task and timed GJT. Accuracy and response times were elicited from the latter test. The forms investigated were object and si-passive pronouns which lack corresponding forms in Swedish, the dominant language of the bilingual groups. Mixed effect regression was modelled to accuracy on the priming and GJT and response time data from the GJT. In contrast, a d-prime analysis was used to measure the degree of sensitivity to grammaticality and bias towards correct and incorrect answers in the GJT. Overall, the two bilingual groups performed quite similarly across the measures tested. All three groups show high sensitivity to grammaticality and a very similar bias for yes-answers on both grammatical and ungrammatical items.
ISSN:1367-0050
1747-7522
DOI:10.1080/13670050.2023.2206949