Cross-Language Interaction During Language

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of the Liberal Arts

CROSS-LANGUAGE INTERACTION DURING LANGUAGE

PRODUCTION

IN L1 GERMAN-L2 ITALIAN BILINGUALS

A Dissertation in

German and Language Science

Courtney Johnson Fowler

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

August 2017 The dissertation of Courtney Johnson Fowler was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Carrie N. Jackson Associate Professor of German and Linguistics Dissertation Adviser Chair of Committee

B. Richard Page Associate Professor of German and Linguistics

Michael T. Putnam Associate Professor of German and Linguistics

Paola E. Dussias Professor of Spanish, Linguistics and Psychology

Thomas Beebee Professor of Comparative Literature and German Chair of the Graduate Program

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

ABSTRACT

One of the most interesting facets of bilingual language processing is the fact that bilinguals cannot completely shut off one of their two languages at will, resulting in nearly constant cross-language interaction between a bilingual’s two languages during both comprehension and production. Bilingualism research over the past several decades has explored this interaction in various populations in order to better understand precisely how and when languages interact at different levels of processing. The current dissertation project seeks to add to this body of research by extending what we know about cross-language interaction at the grammatical level during language production.

This dissertation presents the results of two picture naming experiments designed to measure the amount of cross-language interaction at the grammatical level in highly proficient

L1 German-L2 Italian bilinguals from three different populations. To do this, grammatical gender congruency (i.e., whether a noun belongs to the same gender category in each of the bilingual’s languages or not) of the images to be named was manipulated and naming times were recorded in order to see to what extent the L1 and L2 gender systems influence each other during production. In addition, experimental design and population selection were chosen specifically to directly investigate the influence that speaker-internal and speaker-external factors like language environment, age of L2 acquisition, and experimental context, have on the amount of cross- language interaction experienced by bilinguals under different circumstances.

Results showed that not all populations of L1 German-L2 Italian bilinguals experience cross-language interaction at the grammatical level, but those that do, do so regardless of language environment or language context (i.e., whether images were named in isolation or embedded in sentences). Critically, some speaker-external factors, such as language environment

iii and predictability of the image to be named, had no influence on cross-language interaction at the grammatical level, but did influence lexical access within the same tasks with the same speakers. This finding highlights the fact that various levels of processing are not all equally sensitive to the same factors during language production. Additionally, this dissertation underscores the importance of collecting and considering all characteristics, both speaker internal and external, of bilingual speakers when conducting research on cross-language interaction, as different combinations of factors may have a critical impact on whether interaction is present or absent.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii LIST OF TABLES ...... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... xiv CHAPTER 1: Introduction ...... 1 CHAPTER 2: Background Literature ...... 8 2.1 L1 Production Models ...... 8 2.1.1 Models and Grammatical Gender ...... 8 2.1.1.1 WEAVER++ ...... 9 2.1.1.2 Independent Network Model ...... 12 2.1.1.3 Double Selection Model ...... 14 2.1.2 Differences Between Models with Respect to Grammatical Gender ...... 21 2.2 The Gender-Congruency Effect in Monolinguals ...... 22 2.3 Parallel Activation in Bilinguals ...... 29 2.3.1 Parallel Activation and Cross-Language Interaction ...... 29 2.3.2 Influence of L2 on the L1 ...... 31 2.4 The Gender-Congruency Effect in Bilinguals ...... 32 2.4.1 Gender in German and Italian ...... 43 2.5 The Effect of Environmental and Experimental Contexts on Lexical Access ...... 45 2.5.1 Language Environment ...... 46 2.5.2 Experimental Language Context ...... 48 2.6 South Tyrol ...... 50 2.6.1 Introduction ...... 50 2.6.2 History ...... 51 2.6.3 Languages in South Tyrol ...... 53 2.6.4 Bilingualism ...... 54 2.6.5 South Tyrol as a Unique Language Environment ...... 56 CHAPTER 3: Experiment 1 ...... 58 3.1 Methods: Experiment 1a ...... 58 3.1.1 Participants ...... 58 3.1.2 Materials ...... 66 3.1.3 Procedure ...... 70 3.1.3.1 Supplementary Tasks ...... 73 3.1.3.1.1 Language Background Questionnaire ...... 73 3.1.3.1.2 Italian Cloze Test ...... 74 3.1.3.1.3 English Proficiency Test ...... 74 3.1.3.1.4 Verbal Fluency Task ...... 75 3.1.3.1.5 Automated Operation Span Task ...... 75 3.1.3.1.6 Flanker Task ...... 76 3.2 Results: Experiment 1a ...... 76 3.2.1 Data Analysis ...... 76

3.2.2 Predictions ...... 80 3.2.3 Results: L1 German ...... 81 3.2.4 Results: L2 Italian ...... 87 3.2.5 Summary of Experiment 1a Results ...... 90 3.3 Methods: Experiment 1b ...... 93 3.3.1 Participants ...... 93 3.3.2 Materials ...... 97 3.3.3 Procedure ...... 97 3.4 Results: Experiment 1b ...... 98 3.4.1 Data Analysis ...... 98 3.4.2 Predictions ...... 101 3.4.3 Results: L1 German ...... 102 3.4.4 Results: L2 Italian ...... 105 3.4.5 Summary of Experiment 1b Results ...... 107 3.5 Discussion of Experiment 1 ...... 109 CHAPTER 4: Experiment 2 ...... 117 4.1 Methods: Experiment 2a ...... 117 4.1.1 Participants ...... 117 4.1.2 Materials ...... 125 4.1.3 Procedure ...... 129 4.1.3.1 Additional Supplementary Tasks ...... 133 4.1.3.1.1 L2 Story Narration ...... 133 4.1.3.1.2 Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian/English) ...... 134 4.2 Results: Experiment 2a ...... 134 4.2.1 Data Analysis ...... 134 4.2.2 Predictions ...... 137 4.2.3 Results: L2 Gender Accuracy ...... 138 4.2.4 Results: L1 German Sentence Naming ...... 139 4.2.5 Results: L2 Italian Sentence Naming ...... 142 4.2.6 Summary of Experiment 2a Results ...... 145 4.3 Methods: Experiment 2b ...... 149 4.3.1 Participants ...... 149 4.3.2 Materials ...... 152 4.3.3 Procedure ...... 152 4.4 Results: Experiment 2b ...... 152 4.4.1 Data Analysis ...... 152 4.4.2 Predictions ...... 154 4.4.3 Results: L1 Gender Accuracy ...... 155 4.4.4 Results: L2 German Sentence Naming ...... 155 4.4.5 Results: L2 Italian Sentence Naming ...... 158 4.4.6 Summary of Experiment 2b Results ...... 160 4.5 Discussion of Experiment 2 ...... 161 CHAPTER 5: Conclusions ...... 168 5.1 Introduction ...... 168

5.2 Summary of Important Results ...... 168 5.2.1 Role of Environment on Cross-Language Interaction ...... 168 5.2.2 Role of Language Background on Cross-Language Interaction ...... 169 5.2.3 Naming Context (Bare Noun vs. Determiner+Noun Naming) ...... 171 5.2.4 Experimental Context ...... 172 5.3 Conclusions: Cross-Language Interaction ...... 174 5.4 Conclusions: L1 Language Production Models ...... 178 5.5 Open Questions ...... 180 5.5.1 Why did the Late L2 Italian Speakers Perfrom So Differently from the South Tyrolean Groups? ...... 180 5.5.2 Is There Something Special About Neuter Nouns in German? ...... 183 5.5.3 Does the L2 Influence the L1 at the Grammatical Level? ...... 184 5.6 Future Research ...... 186 5.6.1 Run a Similar Study Manipulating Both Gender Congruency and Cognate Status .. 186 5.6.2 Test Early and Balanced Bilinguals ...... 187 5.6.3 Test L1 Italian-L2 German Bilinguals ...... 188 5.7 Final Summary ...... 189 REFERENCES ...... 191 Appendix A: List of Stimuli ...... 199 Appendix B: German Target Sentences, High (a) & Low (b) Constraint ...... 202 Appendix C: German Filler Sentences (High (HC) and Low (LC) Constraint) & Comprehension Questions ...... 209 Appendix D: Italian Target Sentences, High (a) & Low (b) Constraint ...... 212 Appendix E: Italian Filler Sentences (High (HC) and Low (LC) Constraint) & Comprehension Questions ...... 219 Appendix F: Language Background Questionnaire for Experimental Groups ...... 222

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Depiction of processes involved in picture-naming according to WEAVER++

(adapted from Roelofs, 1992) ...... 10

Figure 2. Illustration of the Independent Network Model (adapted from Caramazza, 1997) ...... 13

Figure 3. Illustration of Double Selection Model’s depiction of an Italian speaker naming

an image with a bare noun (a) and a definite article + noun (b) (taken from Cubelli

et al., 2005) ...... 17

Figure 4. Illustration of Double Selection Model’s depiction of a Dutch speaker naming an

image with a bare noun (a) and a definite article + noun (b) (taken from Cubelli et

al., 2005) ...... 20

Figure 5. Map of Italy with South Tyrol highlighted...... 51

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Overview of the gender-congruency effect in L1 speakers ...... 28

Table 2. Summary of studies looking at the bilingual gender-congruency effect ...... 41

Table 3. The definite articles in German and Italian (nominative case) ...... 45

Table 4. Biographical information for all three Experiment 1a participant groups ...... 62

Table 5. Experiment 1a: Participant self-ratings in L1 German and L2 Italian/English ...... 64

Table 6. Experiment 1a: Reported language use in percentages ...... 66

Table 7. Measures matched between conditions with means and standard deviations ...... 70

Table 8. Complete list of tasks completed by Experiment 1a participants in each

experimental session ...... 71

Table 9. Data eliminated from each task by group (percentage of items removed from total

number of items possible) ...... 77

Table 10. Accuracy on Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in percentages ...... 81

Table 11. Naming times by group for Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in

milliseconds ...... 82

Table 12. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German), including naming

the target word with its correct gender, in percentages...... 83

Table 13. Naming times by group for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in

milliseconds ...... 84

Table 14. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German, Session 2), including

naming the target word with its correct gender, in percentages...... 85

Table 15. Naming times by group for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German,

Session 2) in milliseconds ...... 86

Table 16. Accuracy on Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in percentages ...... 87

Table 17. Naming times by group for Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in milliseconds ..... 88

Table 18. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian), including naming the

target word with its correct gender, in percentages ...... 89

Table 19. Naming times by group for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in

milliseconds ...... 89

Table 20. Overall naming times by group in Experiment 1a ...... 91

Table 21. Summary of results for all L1 German tasks in Experiment 1a...... 92

Table 22. Summary of results for all L2 Italian tasks in Experiment 1a ...... 93

Table 23. Biographical information for Experiment 1b participants ...... 95

Table 24. Experiment 1b: Participant self-ratings in L1 German and L2 Italian ...... 96

Table 25. Experiment 1b: Reported language usage in percentages ...... 97

Table 26. Complete list of tasks completed by Experiment 1b participants in each

experimental session ...... 98

Table 27. Data eliminated from each task (percentage of items removed from total number

of items possible) ...... 99

Table 28. Accuracy on Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in percentages ...... 102

Table 29. Naming times for Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in milliseconds ...... 102

Table 30. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German), including naming

the target word with its correct gender, in percentages...... 103

Table 31. Naming times for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in milliseconds .... 103

Table 32. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German, Session 2), including

naming the target word with its correct gender, in percentages...... 104

Table 33. Naming times for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German, Session 2) in

milliseconds ...... 104

Table 34. Accuracy on Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in percentages ...... 106

Table 35. Naming times for Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in milliseconds ...... 106

Table 36. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian), including naming the

target word with its correct gender, in percentages ...... 107

Table 37. Naming times for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in milliseconds ...... 107

Table 38. Summary of results for all L1 German tasks in Experiment 1b ...... 108

Table 39. Summary of results for all L2 Italian tasks in Experiment 1b ...... 109

Table 40. Summary of Experiment 1a and 1b results for L2 Italian tasks...... 110

Table 41. Summary of Experiment 1a and 1b results for L1 German tasks ...... 113

Table 42. Biographical information for all three Experiment 2a participant groups ...... 121

Table 43. Experiment 2a: Participant self-ratings in L1 German and L2 Italian/English ...... 123

Table 44. Experiment 2a: Reported language usage in percentages ...... 125

Table 45. Examples of high-constraint and low-constraint sentences in German and Italian .... 127

Table 46. Predictability percentages for high and low constraint sentences (in percentages) .... 128

Table 47. Complete list of tasks completed by Experiment 2a participants in each

experimental session ...... 130

Table 48. Data eliminated from each task by group (percentage of items removed from

total number of items possible) ...... 135

Table 49. Accuracy on L2 (Italian/English) Determiner+Noun Picture Naming Task in

percentages ...... 139

Table 50. Overall accuracy on German Sentence Naming in percentages ...... 140

Table 51. Comprehension Question Accuracy in L1 German (in percentages) ...... 140

Table 52. Naming times by group for High-Constraint sentences in German Sentence

Naming in milliseconds ...... 141

Table 53. Naming times by group for Low-Constraint sentences in German Sentence

Naming in milliseconds ...... 141

Table 54. Overall accuracy on Italian Sentence Naming in percentages ...... 143

Table 55. Comprehension Question Accuracy in L2 Italian (in percentages) ...... 143

Table 56. Naming times by group for High-Constraint sentences in Italian Sentence

Naming in milliseconds ...... 144

Table 57. Naming times by group for Low-Constraint sentences in Italian Sentence

Naming in milliseconds ...... 144

Table 58. Overall naming times by group in Experiment 2a ...... 146

Table 59. Summary of results for Experiment 2a ...... 148

Table 60. Biographical information for Experiment 2b participants ...... 150

Table 61. Experiment 2b: Participant self-ratings in L1 German and L2 Italian ...... 151

Table 62. Experiment 2b: Reported language usage in percentages Italian ...... 152

Table 63. Data eliminated from each task (percentage of items removed from total number

of items possible) ...... 153

Table 64. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun L2 Italian Picture Naming Task in percentages ...... 155

Table 65. Overall accuracy on German Sentence Naming in percentages ...... 156

Table 66. Comprehension Question Accuracy in L1 German (in percentages) ...... 156

Table 67. Naming times for High-Constraint sentences in German Sentence Naming in

milliseconds ...... 156

xii

Table 68. Naming times for Low-Constraint sentences in German Sentence Naming in

milliseconds ...... 157

Table 69. Accuracy on Italian Sentence Naming for High-Constraint sentences in

percentages ...... 158

Table 70. Comprehension Question Accuracy in L2 Italian (in percentages) ...... 159

Table 71. Naming times for High-Constraint sentences in Italian Sentence Naming in

milliseconds ...... 159

Table 72. Naming times for Low-Constraint sentences in Italian Sentence Naming in

milliseconds ...... 159

Table 73. Summary of results for Experiment 2b ...... 161

Table 74. Summary of Experiment 2a and 2b results for L2 Italian sentence naming task ...... 165

Table 75. Summary of Experiment 2a and 2b results for L1 German sentence naming ...... 166

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Nobody completes a dissertation alone. I relied upon so many individuals (and countless cups of coffee, Kaffee, and caffé!) for help and support during this process and if just one of those people had not been there, finishing this dissertation would have been immensely more difficult. To all of you, both those I mention here by name, as well as the dozens of others who offered assistance along this journey, I say vielen Dank, grazie mille, muchas gracias, and thank you so very much.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor Carrie Jackson. I got to Penn State with only a vague idea of what I wanted to study, yet from the very beginning you seemed to understand my interests better than I did and helped me to find my way. You’ve been patient and understanding with me, yet you’ve also held me to high standards and demanded my best in everything I do. I have learned so much from you and have so enjoyed working with you over the past six years.

Thank you to the remaining members of my dissertation committee: Richard Page,

Michael Putnam, and Giuli Dussias. Each of you has contributed to this dissertation project as well as to my overall education in linguistics and psycholinguistics in unique and important ways and I am grateful to each of you for your investment in me during my time at Penn State.

I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the researchers across the Atlantic who opened their labs to me so that I could collect data for this project: Dr. Rita Franceschini (Freie

Univeristät Bozen), Dr. Bernhard Pöll (Universität Salzburg), Dr. Rudolf Da Cillia (Universität

Wien), and Dr. Florian Menz (Universität Wien). Each of you welcomed me into your respective universities, made room for me to test participants, and did all you could to ensure that I was

xiv successful. Ohne Sie wäre diese Dissertation durchaus unmöglich und ich bin Ihnen unendlich dankbar für alles, was Sie mir ermöglicht haben.

Muchas gracias to the Memory and Language Research Group at the Universidad de

Granada, specifically to Dr. Daniela Paolieri, Dr. Teresa Bajo, and Dr. Luis Morales. I learned so much on my visit to your lab, both from the three of you as well as the other members of your group. Your insights and feedback improved this dissertation project considerably and for that, along with your kindness and hospitality, I am forever grateful.

Because this dissertation deals with German and Italian, neither of which is my mother tongue, I relied upon many native speakers of both languages to ensure that my materials were accurate. Ines Martin, Hyoun-A Joo, Nora Vosburg, Liese Sippel, Teresa Rieger, Julia

Makowiecki, and Juliane Schicker were incredibly helpful in developing the German materials and Federica Bulgarelli, Rita Morandi, Antonello Cagiano, Carla Contemori, Jacopo Terzaroli,

Renata Grilli, and Eleonora Rossi were essential in helping to develop the Italian materials.

Thank you to the numerous organizations that generously funded this dissertation, both directly and indirectly. Specifically, thank you to the National Science Foundation, the Fulbright

Program, Language Learning, the Center for Language Science, and the College of Liberal Arts at Penn State.

Ein großes Danke schön to all 483 participants who took part in my dissertation experiments, both in the labs in Bolzano, Salzburg, and Vienna, and via online surveys. For many of you, it was the first time you’d ever taken part in a psycholinguistic study and I am extremely grateful for your curiosity and willingness to be a part of my research.

I would be remiss if I did not name some additional individuals who assisted me in one form or another during this process. To Zofia Wodnieka and Rachel Klassen – thank you for

xv offering your time and wisdom at different stages of this project. To Giulia Bianchi – thank you for sharing your materials with me so that I could have a proper proficiency test for my highly proficient L2 Italian speakers! To Angela Grant – thank you for tipping me off to the existence of CoLFIS! Thank you to Dr. Thomas Jacobsen and the International Picture Naming Project for making your library of images available to me for use in these experiments. To Florian Huber – thanks for your help and support during my time in Salzburg. And finally, to Katrin Renner, for helping me with data collection across multiple cities and semesters.

Collecting data for this project meant spending over a year in Europe. During my time in

Italy and in Austria I received immeasurable support from many friends and colleagues. During my time in Bolzano, Kathrin Schwarz, Mara Leonardi, and Helen Engemann were incredibly generous with their time. From helping me brainstorm recruiting ideas, to taking much-needed espresso breaks together, you made life so much easier for me. Special thanks to Kathrin for introducing me to Südtirol in the first place (how lucky I was to have you as a roommate all those years ago in Salzburg!) and for taking the time to expose me to as much of the food, culture, and mountains as possible during my time in South Tyrol. During my time in Austria I was lucky to have Teresa Rieger and Claudia and Mike Lawson to keep me company. In addition to helping me in every way possible with the dissertation project, they also offered support in the form of their friendship and were generous with their time. Without the weekends away in Wels or the late-night talks in the kitchen in Aigen, my time in Austria would not have been nearly as special.

A major factor in what made my time in State College so special was the constant support and friendship from the people in the Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and

Literatures and the Center for Language Science. I want to thank Don Vosburg for the years you

xvi spent convincing me that I should apply to Penn State! Your friendship and invaluable advice over the years are so appreciated. Thank you to Caitlin Ting for your friendship, for being a wonderful travel partner, and for your help during the data analysis phase of this project. I will always be grateful that we were chosen to work together on the YSSS, because it meant the beginning of our friendship. Ines and Hyoun-A: I am eternally grateful that you both chose Penn

State, because I can’t image graduate school without both of you! One of my fondest memories of this whole process was coming up with German sentences together around Ines’ dining room table together! Even though we were apart for most of the time I was working on my dissertation project, you have been so supportive and encouraging to me from a distance and have always been so accepting and understanding. Knowing that I can always come to you has been more helpful than you will ever know. Menschen zu finden, die mit uns fühlen und empfinden, ist wohl das schönste Glück auf Erden (Carl Spitteler). Finally, a special thank you to Nick Henry. You were one of the first people I met at Penn State and have been a dear friend ever since. I could not have survived graduate school with your constant support and friendship and your willingness to help whenever I was feeling overwhelmed. I am especially grateful for the advice you gave me at the beginning of my data collection overseas. I repeated that advice to myself over and over and it got me through so many challenging times.

Thank you to my parents, Mary Ann and Steve Johnson, who raised me to value education and to believe that I could do anything. By making it possible for me to move to

Austria at 17 as an AFS exchange student, you helped to set my life on the course that led me all the way to this dissertation. You’ve never doubted me, and I am so lucky to be your daughter. To my sister, Sarah, thank you for your constant and unwavering support from afar and for bringing

xvii sweet little Harvey into the world while I was nine time zones away collecting my final round of dissertation data.

Finally, the biggest thank you of all goes to my partner and best friend, Marcus. I would never have made it to this point without you. You supported my crazy idea to return to graduate school and move to Central Pennsylvania, you’ve put up with my high stress levels and overly dramatic emotions over the years, kept our home together during my four research trips overseas, and picked up an incredible amount of slack during my absences. You have supported me 100% with your words, your actions, and your unending patience. Without you, there would be no dissertation.

xviii

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

Language scientists have dedicated much of their research over the past two decades to understanding exactly how bilingual speakers manage their two languages during language production. This question is of critical importance in the context of an increasingly globalized society in which bilinguals likely outnumber monolinguals (Grosjean, 2012). Even the United

States, long seen by the rest of the world as a strictly monolingual society, is in reality a country in which one in five children is raised in a home that speaks a language other than English (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2013). Although research has considerably advanced our understanding of bilingual language processing, open questions remain about precisely how and when languages interact in bilingual speakers.

The current dissertation has two main goals. The first is to better understand when, how, and under what circumstances languages interact, particularly at the grammatical level, in bilingual speakers from different populations. The second goal is to use bilinguals to investigate the mechanisms involved in language production, which may be applicable to both monolinguals as well as multilinguals. To accomplish these goals, three distinct populations of bilinguals,1 whose first language (L1) was German and second language (L2) was Italian, completed two versions of a picture naming experiment. The three populations differed with regard to their language background and current language environment, and the two experiments differed with regard to the context in which participants named images. By comparing performance between groups, looking at differing experimental contexts, and having participants complete all tasks in

1 In this dissertation the term bilingual is used to refer to an individual who is able to speak and understand two (or more) languages. This term is not restricted to speakers who acquired both languages in early childhood (i.e., early bilinguals) nor to speakers who are equally proficient in both languages (i.e., balanced bilinguals). In the course of the dissertation, additional information about the specific nature of an individual’s or a group’s bilingualism will be provided to give the reader a more specific understanding of their linguistic profile. 1 both their L1 German and their L2 Italian, this dissertation will add to our understanding of the factors that influence cross-language interaction among bilinguals and provide a more complete picture of the mechanisms that underlie language production.

One of the most fundamental findings about bilingualism, supported by over two decades of research, is that when bilinguals are processing in one language, they cannot “turn off” the language not in use at will (see Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski, & Valdes Kroff, 2012 for a review). In other words, both languages remain active in the bilingual mind, even when a speaker is communicating in only one of her two languages. This is known as ”parallel activation” and results in cross-language interaction between languages, in which languages influence each other during comprehension and production. In order to ensure that the correct language is used in a given situation, one hypothesis states that bilinguals must inhibit the language not in use (e.g.,

Green, 1998; Kroll, Bobb, Misra, & Guo, 2008 for review). Inhibition levels vary depending on both speaker-internal and external factors (e.g., Morales, Paolieri, & Bajo, 2011; Linck, Kroll, &

Sunderman, 2009), but studies have shown that cross-language interaction is likely almost always present to some degree during processing (but see Starreveld, de Groot, Rossmark, & van

Hell, 2013).

Studies have investigated and found evidence for cross-language interaction at both the lexical and grammatical levels (e.g., Costa, Caramazza, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2000; Salamoura &

Williams, 2007). However, far fewer studies have explored the role that outside factors, like language background, environmental context, or language environment, play in the amount of cross-language interaction experienced. Most of the studies that have looked at such factors have done so at the lexical level. For example, a speaker’s language environment has been found to affect lexical access (e.g., Linck et al., 2009), and the high predictability of a target image has

2 been found to reduce interaction when naming images in the L1 (e.g., Starreveld et al., 2013).

Both of these findings have been observed at the lexical level in studies manipulating cognate status. What is less well understood is what influence speaker-internal and speaker-external factors have on cross-language interaction during real-time language processing at the grammatical level among highly-proficient bilinguals, and whether interaction at the grammatical level behaves similarly to interaction at the lexical level (but see, e.g., Argyri &

Sorace, 2007; Dussias & Sagarra, 2007, for exceptions). By systematically manipulating factors like language environment, language background, and experimental context, the current study seeks to shed light on the role that such factors play in the amount of interaction experienced by speakers specifically at the grammatical level, in both the L1 and the L2.

Despite the prevalence of bilingualism across the globe, until recently scholars conducted their research with and based their hypotheses and models regarding language processing primarily on monolinguals. Relevant to the current study, the first language production models were created to explain language production exclusively in monolingual speakers (e.g.,

Caramazza, 1997; Dell, 1986; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999). Despite general similarities of the architecture between models, predictions made by various models differ in many ways.

Specifically, models differ with regard to where and when particular grammatical features, including grammatical gender information, are accessed. Data collected over the years support different models’ predictions, leaving many open questions regarding how grammatical information is actually selected during language production. Studies have investigated these questions by focusing on grammatical gender access in monolinguals, yet such studies have arguably been limited by the methodology they employed, namely the picture-word interference paradigm (e.g., Miozzo & Caramazza, 1999; Schriefers, 1993; Paolieri, Lotto, Morales, Bajo,

Cubelli, & Job, 2010). This paradigm manipulates the gender-congruency of an image to be named and a distractor word in order to investigate when and under what circumstances gender information about a noun is selected. However, this methodology is limited by the fact that it creates a testing situation that is very unlike natural language production and, perhaps, taps into less than natural processing strategies. In order to address the question regarding grammatical gender selection left open by the monolingual language production models, the current study uses a bilingual instead of a monolingual population, which allows for testing with a methodology that reflects more realistic language use.

It is the near-constant cross-language interaction experienced by bilinguals that makes it possible to use bilingual participants and thereby to employ a more ecological methodology to investigate the open questions surrounding language production models and their predictions regarding gender selection in ways that experiments with monolinguals cannot. Instead of relying on the picture-word interference paradigm used with monolinguals, bilinguals can complete simple picture naming tasks in order to measure gender-congruency between languages. When bilinguals name an image in their L2, this image acts as the target, and the image’s translation in the L1 is the distractor. By measuring differences in naming times between images whose gender is identical in both languages and images whose gender differs between languages, researchers can see whether a gender-congruency effect is present. This effect is a natural consequence of cross-language interaction at the grammatical level in bilinguals.

By employing bilingual populations in the current study, we are therefore able to address both primary goals of this dissertation. First, by measuring the amount of influence the L1 and

L2 have on each other during language production under differing circumstances (e.g., language environment, language used in task, language background, experimental context), we will gain a

4 better understanding of exactly when cross-language interaction is present in bilingual speakers, specifically at the grammatical level. Second, this population also enables us to use a more naturalistic task (i.e., picture naming) to explore open questions with regard to L1 language production models, specifically pertaining to the access and selection of grammatical information.

In Experiment 1, three groups of L1 German-L2 Italian bilinguals and a control group of

L1 German-L2 English bilinguals completed a series of five picture naming tasks, three in their

L1 German and two in their L2 Italian/English. Speakers named images either with the definite article + noun or the bare noun. The experimental groups differed with regard to their language backgrounds (e.g., at what age and in what context the L2 Italian was acquired) and their current language environments (e.g., L1-dominant environment vs. a bilingual environment). The aim of this first experiment was to address the following research questions:

1. Does the gender-congruency effect appear both in conditions in which gender

computation is required (i.e., Determiner+Noun condition) and conditions in which

gender computation is not required (i.e., Bare Noun condition)?

2. Does the gender-congruency effect appear in both L2 Italian and L1 German naming

tasks?

3. Does language environment modulate the presence of the gender-congruency effect?

4. Do other factors, such as language background and language use patterns, play a role

in the whether the gender-congruency effect is present?

In Experiment 2, three new groups of L1 German-L2 Italian bilinguals and a control group of L1 German-L2 English bilinguals completed a series of two picture naming tasks, one in their L1 German and one in their L2 Italian. The images to be named in this second

5 experiment were not presented in isolation as in the first experiment, but were instead embedded into sentences. Sentences were manipulated for predictability of the target images, with half being unpredictable (i.e., low constraint) and half being highly predictable (i.e., high constraint).

The experimental groups were drawn from the same populations as in the first experiment and differed from one another with regard to their language backgrounds (e.g., at what age and in what context the L2 Italian was acquired) and their current language environments (e.g., L1- dominant environment vs. a bilingual environment). The aim of this second experiment was to address the following research questions:

1. Does the gender-congruency effect appear when participants are asked to name images

in sentence contexts?

2. Is the gender-congruency effect modulated by whether the image is predictable from

the context (i.e., high constraint) or not (i.e., low constraint)?

3. Does the gender-congruency effect appear in both the L2 Italian and the L1 German

when images are named in sentence context?

4. Does language environment modulate the presence of the gender-congruency effect

when images are named in sentence context?

5. Do other factors, such as language background and language use patterns, play a role

in the whether the gender-congruency effect is present when images are named in

sentence context?

The layout of this dissertation is as follows. Chapter 2 will provide an extensive review of language production models, parallel activation, and research looking at cross-language interaction at the grammatical level in both monolinguals and bilinguals. Chapter 3 presents the methods, results, and discussion of Experiment 1, which is divided into Experiment 1a and

Experiment 1b. Chapter 4 presents the methods, results, and discussion of Experiment 2, which is divided into Experiment 2a and Experiment 2b. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a general discussion of the results from both experiments and addresses the limitations and potential future research directions.

CHAPTER 2: Background Literature

2.1 L1 Production Models

Models of language production were originally designed to account for the mechanisms underlying speech production among monolingual speakers. Although during the past two decades various models of bilingual language production have been proposed (see Kroll &

Dussias, 2004 for an overview), many open questions remain with regard to these original monolingual models (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Cubelli, Lotto, Paolieri, Girelli, & Job, 2005;

Levelt et al., 1999). Relevant to the current dissertation, many of these open questions surround the activation and selection of grammatical gender. First, I will provide an overview of three models of (monolingual) language production that specifically address when and how grammatical gender is activated and selected. I will then provide a discussion of the open questions that remain regarding these models and how they each deal with activation and selection of grammatical gender.

2.1.1 Models and Grammatical Gender

The most prominent and often-tested language production models differ in many ways, including the data they were designed to explain, but psycholinguistic models generally assume spreading activation through a network made up of nodes containing conceptual, lexical, and phonological information. Generally, production models assume three main stages of processing through which such activation spreads (but see Caramazza, 1997), though these stages are divided differently among models. Broadly speaking, the first stage, the conceptual stage, is a non-linguistic stage in which the speaker conceives of the concept she plans to express. The second stage, the formulation stage, is where the speaker matches the chosen concept to the best representation of that concept in her lexicon. Finally, the third stage, the articulation stage, is

8 where the speaker produces the word selected at the formulation stage. Beyond the similarities in their overall design, models differ in how and when activation spreads, what steps must be taken before selection occurs at a particular level, and whether or not all languages behave identically.

Below, the three language production models most relevant to the current dissertation are presented in more detail.

2.1.1.1 WEAVER++

The WEAVER++2 model (Levelt, 1999; Levelt et al., 1999; Roelofs, 1992) was designed to account for behavioral data from healthy participants. The model assumes that processing takes place over four levels known as the “conceptual stratum,” the “syntactic stratum,” the

“word-form stratum,” and the “articulation stratum.” Figure 1 depicts the model for reference and shows specifically which processes are involved during picture naming. The illustrations of the model differ in their various iterations (e.g., Levelt, 1999; Levelt et al., 1999; Roelofs, 1992), but a simplified version is presented here for clarity.

2 The WEAVER++ name actually refers to the computational model put forth originally by Roelofs (1992), but this name is used throughout this dissertation to refer to the theory more generally. 9

Figure 1. Depiction of processes involved in picture-naming according to WEAVER++ (adapted from Roelofs, 1992)

Conceptual Identification

Lemma

Retrieval

Word-Form Encoding

Articulation

When a speaker sees an image, it activates a representation at the conceptual level.

Critically, this model assumes that activation begins at this conceptual level (“conceptual identification” in Figure 1) and spreads forward down the model. Between the conceptual and lexical levels (“lemma retrieval” in Figure 1) activation can spread bi-directionally, but from the lexical level onward, activation can only spread forward and can do so only after selection has taken place at each successive level. From the conceptual level, activation spreads downward to the syntactic stratum or lexical level. This stage contains nodes known as lemmas, each of which contains a particular lexical item which is attached to additional nodes containing syntactic features (e.g., number, gender). When activation arrives at this level the target word receives activation along with words that are semantically related to the target (e.g., if “dog” is the target,

“cat” and “wolf” may also receive activation). Here, these semantically-related words must complete for selection. Once activation of the target lemma reaches a tipping point where it has more activation than the competing lemmas (known as “Luce’s ratio” from Luce, 1959, cited in

Levelt, 1999), it is selected and activation continues to spread down to the word-form encoding level or phonological level. Here three types of information are activated: a) the word’s morphological makeup; b) its metrical shape; and c) its segmental makeup (Levelt et al., 1999, p.

5). Once all of these pieces have been selected, the word can finally be articulated by the speaker

(articulation level) and the process is complete.

In this model, grammatical gender information is stored at the lemma level. Each gender is represented by a single node, to which all nouns that share that particular gender category are connected. For example, in German, a language with three gender categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter), there are three gender nodes; all masculine nouns are connected to the masculine node, all feminine nouns are connected to the feminine node, and all neuter nouns are connected to the neuter node. Only after a lemma has been selected can gender information be accessed. Selection of gender is non-competitive, meaning that once a lemma is selected, if gender information is required, the appropriate gender node (e.g., feminine) is accessed automatically and the selected lemma must not compete with other lemmas that share a gender representation (e.g., other feminine nouns). Critically, gender information only undergoes selection when computation of agreement is required by context (e.g., Levelt et al., 1999;

Schriefers & Jescheniak, 1999). For example, when speakers are asked to name images using the gender-specific definite article and the noun, agreement between the article and the noun must be computed, so the correct gender node for a particular lexical item is selected. In contrast, when speakers are asked to name images using just the bare noun, there is no agreement to be computed, so gender information may be activated, but selection does not take place.

2.1.1.2 Independent Network Model

Another model of language production was proposed originally by Caramazza (1997;

Caramazza & Miozzo, 1997) and is known as the Independent Network Model. See Figure 2 for an illustration of this model. In contrast to WEAVER++, the Independent Network Model was created to explain data obtained from patients with brain damage, who produced divergent responses in written versus spoken modalities (see Caramazza, 1997 for review). Like

WEAVER++, processing begins at the conceptual level, which is known as the “semantic representation” level in this model. Unlike WEAVER++ however, this model does not contain a modality independent lexical (or lemma) level. Activation spreads from the conceptual level directly to either the orthographic or phonological levels, depending on which modality is required for production. The elimination of this lexical/lemma level is a direct result of the data from patients with brain damage showing that these patients often display difficulties naming in just one of the two modalities and do not make the same mistakes in the other. Caramazza (1997) argues that this is only possible if their difficulties producing the correct item stem from a modality-specific level and not from a shared lexical level; otherwise, patients would exhibit the same naming patterns in both modalities. Finally, the “syntactic features” level is partially activated at the same time that information at either the phonological or orthographic lexeme levels is activated, but is only fully accessible once selection has taken place at either the phonological or orthographic lexeme levels.

Like WEAVER++, activation is forward feeding in the Independent Network Model.

However, in contrast to the serial nature of WEAVER++, activation in the Independent Network

Model is cascading and can therefore spread to the next level of processing prior to selection taking place at the current level. For example, from the conceptual level, the word form is

12 directly activated at either the orthographic or phonological level. In addition to activating semantic information at one of these modality-specific levels, certain grammatical/syntactic information (e.g., natural gender, word class) is activated within this level. As activation is spreading to either the orthographic or phonological levels, and well before selection has taken place here, it also spreads to the syntactic node. The amount of activation at the syntactic level is enough to prime the additional grammatical/syntactic information – including grammatical gender information – stored there, but is not enough activation to lead to selection. Though activated at the same time as the lexical information, this information can only be selected following activation and selection of the appropriate orthographic or phonological lexeme.

Figure 2. Illustration of the Independent Network Model (adapted from Caramazza, 1997)

Semantic Representation

Orthographic Syntactic Phonological Lexemes Features Lexemes

Grammatical gender information is stored at the syntactic features level. Just as in

WEAVER++, each gender is represented by a single node, to which all nouns that share that

13 particular gender category are connected. Like WEAVER++, gender selection is a non- competitive process. Furthermore, selection of gender information is only required when computation of agreement is required by context. It is possible in this model to select the lexical and phonological information about a noun without selecting its gender information.

2.1.1.3 Double Selection Model

The final model to be discussed here, termed the Double Selection Model by its creators

(Cubelli et al., 2005), is also the most recently proposed model of language production discussed here. It was designed primarily to address differences observed in performance in picture-word interference experiments between Germanic language monolinguals and Romance language monolinguals and is therefore the only model in which cross-linguistic differences are directly addressed. Specifically, this model attempts to explain differences between the aforementioned language groups with regard to the gender-congruency effect obtained in picture-word interference tasks, which is present whenever differences in naming times are observed between target-distractor pairs that share a gender (congruent) and pairs that do not share a gender

(incongruent) (for details regarding this effect and corresponding studies see Section 2.2).

Because the model is designed to explain phenomena at the lexical level of processing, it focuses almost exclusively on this level.

The Double Selection Model is universal but its “mechanisms operate according to the constraints imposed by language-specific properties” (Cubelli et al., 2005, p. 53). Its name refers to the two levels of selection that must be completed following the conceptual level but before the phonological form of a noun can be accessed: temporally, selection must occur first at the semantic level and then at the syntactic level. At each of these two levels, the lexical item is connected to the nodes shared by other nouns of the same semantic or syntactic category (e.g.,

14 word category, grammatical gender). Selection at both levels is assumed to be a competitive process, with words that share either a semantic category or a grammatical (syntactic) category competing for selection. This is in contrast with other models (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999), in which only semantically-related words compete for selection, but nouns that share a gender do not.

Figure 3 illustrates how the model accounts for performance on a picture-word interference task by monolingual Italian speakers when naming with a bare noun (Figure 3a) or with a determiner + noun phrase (Figure 3b). Studies have shown that Italian speakers show no gender-congruency effect when a gender-specific determiner is required for production (e.g.,

Miozzo & Caramazza, 1999) but do show a gender-congruency effect during bare noun naming, whereby incongruent noun pairs are named faster than congruent noun pairs (e.g., Cubelli et al.,

2005). The authors consider nouns in languages like Italian to have a “complex morphological structure” (Cubelli et al., 2005, p. 53), meaning that they consist of a semantic root (e.g., lun- in luna, “moon”) and a syntactic stem that corresponds to a particular gender (e.g., -a in luna).

Because the gender-marked final vowel carries grammatical information, selection of grammatical gender in these languages is mandatory, regardless of context (i.e., whether naming with a bare noun or a determiner + noun phrase). In Figure 3a, an Italian speaker is presented with a screen showing an image of a “moon” (luna in Italian) and the word for “night” (notte in

Italian) and is asked to name the image using the bare noun. Note that the word luna also activates words that are semantically related (e.g., sole, “sun”) as well as words that share a gender (feminine) (e.g., rete, “net”). In the target-distractor pair depicted in Figure 3a, the target image and the distractor word are semantically related and also share a gender (feminine). Luna

(“moon”) must therefore overcome competition from notte (“night”) at both the semantic and

15 syntactic levels in order to correctly select the stem (lun-) and the final vowel (-a) respectively.

This slows processing and results in larger naming latencies compared to target-distractor pairs

that are not semantically or syntactically related (e.g., luna-FEM, “moon” and coltello-MASC,

“knife”). In Figure 3b, an Italian speaker is again presented with a screen showing an image of a

“moon” (luna in Italian) and the word for “night” (notte in Italian), but this time is asked to name the image using the noun along with its definite article. In this scenario, the same competition between target and distractor takes place at the semantic and syntactic levels for selection of the

word luna (“moon”), which slows processing. Selection of the definite article la-FEM is facilitated in the case of luna-notte as both target and distractor converge on the same gender node

(feminine), which speeds processing. However, because determiner selection in Italian is contingent upon the phonological onset of the noun,3 selection must wait until the noun’s word form has been selected and phonological information is available, thus slowing processing and cancelling out any initial facilitation gained due to the target and distractor converging on the same definite article.

3 In the event that am Italian noun begins with a vowel, the definite article elides to l’ in place of la, il, or lo. In the case of a masculine noun, two definite articles exist: il and lo. Here again the onset of the noun is critical for determiner selection; the majority of masculine nouns take il, but those nouns whose onset contains and s + consonant, an affricate (e.g., gn, ps), z, or y take lo. 16

Figure 3. Illustration of Double Selection Model’s depiction of an Italian speaker naming an image with a bare noun (a) and a definite article + noun (b) (taken from Cubelli et al., 2005)

(A)

NOTTE

rete luna sole notte rete luna sole notte net moon sun night fem fem masc fem

[LUN-] [-A]

/luna/

(B)

NOTTE

rete luna sole notte rete luna sole notte web moon sun night fem fem masc fem

[LUN-] [-A] [LA] [IL] [LO]

/luna/ /la/

/la luna/

Figure 4 illustrates how the model accounts for performance on a picture-word interference task by monolingual Dutch speakers when naming with a bare noun (Figure 4a) or with a determiner + noun phrase (Figure 4b). Unlike Italian, Dutch nouns do not require gender information to compute their word forms, so gender selection in languages like Dutch is not mandatory and can be “delayed or blocked” in contexts that do not require gender agreement

(e.g., in bare noun naming) (Cubelli et al., 2005, p. 54). In Dutch, selection at the semantic level is enough to access a noun’s word form. Therefore, if a target-distractor pair is semantically related, competition will occur at the semantic level, but as selection at the syntactic level is not required in bare noun naming, no competition or facilitation occurs here. In Figure 4a, a Dutch speaker is presented with a screen showing an image of a “house” (huis in Dutch) and the word for “castle” (kasteel in Dutch) and is asked to name the image using the bare noun. The target

huis also activates the semantically-related word kerk-FEM (“church”) and nouns that share the

same gender (neuter), such as been-NEUT (“leg”). Because the target image and the distractor word are semantically related and also share a gender (neuter), huis (“house”) must overcome competition from kasteel (“castle”) at the semantic level in order to correctly select the word form (huis). However, in contrast with languages like Italian, despite sharing a gender, no competition occurs between huis and kasteel because gender information is not required by the context (i.e., bare noun naming). This slows down processing only at the semantic level, but no additional slowing occurs at the syntactic level. In Figure 4b, a Dutch speaker is again presented with a screen showing an image of a “house” (huis in Dutch) and the word for “castle” (kasteel in Dutch), but this time is asked to name the image using the noun along with its definite article.

In this scenario, the same competition between target and distractor takes place at the semantic level as in the bare noun naming condition (Figure 4a); huis (“house”) competes with the

18 semantically-related distractor kasteel (“castle”) for selection. However, unlike in bare noun naming, here gender is required by the context (i.e., determiner + noun naming). This results in additional competition at the syntactic level for selection of the nouns’s gender (neuter). From

here, selection of the definite article het-NEUT is facilitated in the case of huis-kasteel as both target and distractor converge on the same gender-specific article (neuter), which speeds processing. In contrast, when the target and distractor do not share a gender (e.g., if kasteel were feminine instead of neuter), two gender nodes are activated instead of just one, thus slowing processing while the target gender node is chosen over the distractor gender node and ultimately

the definite article het-NEUT is chosen over de-FEM. Because determiner selection in Dutch is not contingent upon the phonological onset of the noun as it is in languages like Italian, selection must not wait for the noun’s word form to be selected and phonological information to become available, so once the correct gender node is selected, activation can spread directly and without delay to the lexeme level.

Figure 4. Illustration of Double Selection Model’s depiction of a Dutch speaker naming an image with a bare noun (a) and a definite article + noun (b) (taken from Cubelli et al., 2005)

(A)

KASTEEL

been huis kerk kasteel been huis kerk kasteel leg house church castle neut neut fem neut

[HUIS]

/huis/

(B) KASTEEL

been huis kerk kasteel been huis kerk kasteel leg house church castle neut neut fem neut

[HUIS] [HET] [DE]

/huis/ /het/

/het huis/

2.1.2 Differences Between Models with Respect to Grammatical Gender

As stated in the introduction to this section, many open questions remain with regard to monolingual language production models. Specifically, when it comes to the access and selection of grammatical gender, different models make different predictions about how and when this takes place.

First, the models with regard to when gender information is activated. WEAVER++ (e.g.,

Levelt, 1999; Level et al., 1999; Roelofs, 1992) and the Double Selection Model (Cubelli et al.,

2005) both state that gender information can only be accessed following selection of a lexical item. In contrast, the Independent Network Model (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Caramazza &

Miozzo, 1997) states that gender information can be “primed” ahead of selection of a lexical item, but that full access to gender information is only possible after selection of the noun.

Second, the models differ as to whether gender selection is a competitive process.

WEAVER++ (e.g., Roelofs, 1992) and the Independent Network Model (e.g., Caramazza, 1997) assume that gender selection is non-competitive. When gender information about a noun is required, activation automatically spreads to the gender node that corresponds to that particular noun (e.g., the feminine node is activated for feminine nouns). In contrast, the Double Selection model (Cubelli et al., 2005) assumes that gender selection, like selection at the semantic level, is competitive. In contrast to the other two models, this model assumes that the competition between words that share a gender resembles the competition between semantically-related words and results in the prediction that a noun will compete with other nouns from the same gender category (e.g., a feminine noun will activate other feminine nouns which must then compete for selection). This difference between models as to whether gender selection is

21 competitive or non-competitive has repercussions for the direction of the gender-congruency effect in the picture-word interference paradigm (see Section 2.2 for further discussion).

Third, the models differ as to when selection of grammatical gender information is required and when it is not. WEAVER++ (e.g., Levelt et al., 1999) and the Independent Network

Model (e.g., Caramazza, 1997) predict that gender information is only selected when required for computation of gender agreement (as in determiner + noun naming), resulting in the absence of the gender-congruency effect in bare noun naming conditions. This prediction applies to all languages. The Double Selection Model (Cubelli et al., 2005), on the other hand, makes different predictions for different types of languages. Of the three models, it is the only one to assume that gender is selected regardless of context, yet only for languages with a “complex morphological structure,” in which the noun’s ending is gender-specific (e.g., Italian, Spanish). For languages whose nouns do not contain a gender-marked ending (e.g., German, Dutch), the Double

Selection Model makes the same prediction as WEAVER++ and the Independent Network

Model: selection of grammatical gender is only necessary when the context requires it (e.g., determiner + noun naming).

2.2 The Gender-Congruency Effect in Monolinguals

In order to find evidence to support predictions regarding the activation and selection of grammatical gender made by the language production models discussed in the previous section, researchers used the picture-word interference paradigm with monolinguals to measure the so- called “gender-congruency effect.” This effect is present whenever there are differences in naming times between target images and distractor words that are gender congruent (i.e., have the same gender) or gender incongruent (i.e., have different genders) (henceforth referred to simply as “congruent” and “incongruent”). Schriefers (1993) modified the picture-word

22 interference paradigm, previously used to measure semantic and phonological competition between a target image and an orthographical distractor, to instead manipulate gender congruency. In this task, both a target image and an orthographic distractor word (both nouns) appeared on the screen and L1 Dutch participants were instructed to name the target image either with the definite article + adjective + noun (Experiment 1) or the adjective + noun (Experiment

2) and to ignore the distractor word. This distractor word either shared a gender with the target image, like the target-distractor pair in 1a (i.e., congruent pairs), or did not share a gender with the target image, like the target-distractor pair in 1b (i.e., incongruent pairs). Results showed that naming latencies were shorter when the target image and the distractor word were gender congruent (like in 1a) compared to incongruent pairs (like in 1b). Based on his results, Schriefers concluded that the gender-congruency effect reflected competition resulting from the activation of the two gender nodes representing the gender categories of incongruent target-distractor pairs.

In order to complete selection, the target and distractor genders must therefore compete with one another. Such competition is absent in congruent pairs, in which only a single gender node is activated, leading to faster naming times when the gender is shared between target and distractor.

These results, Schriefers concluded, are in accordance with the predictions made by the

WEAVER++ model (e.g., Roelofs, 1992).

(1a) het huis-NEUT (“the house”) het been-NEUT (“the leg”)

(1b) het huis-NEUT (“the house”) de tafel-FEM (“the table”)

Following Schriefers (1993), scholars continued to look for the gender-congruency effect in monolinguals of different languages, including Dutch (La Heij, Mak, Sander, & Willeboordse,

1998; Schiller & Caramazza, 2003; van Berkum, 1997), German (Schiller & Caramazza, 2003;

Schriefers & Teruel, 2000), Italian (Cubelli et al., 2005; Miozzo & Caramazza, 1999; Miozzo,

Costa, & Caramazza, 2002; Paolieri, Lotto, et al., 2010; Paolieri, Lotto, Leoncini, Cubelli, & Job,

2011), Spanish (Miozzo et al., 2002; Paolieri, Lotto, et al., 2010), French (Alario & Caramazza,

2002; Foucart, Branigan, & Bard, 2010), and Croatian (Costa, Kovacic, Fedorenko, &

Caramazza, 2003). Results from a selection of these studies are described below.

The first study to replicate Schriefers’ (1993) findings did so with a new group of L1

Dutch speakers (van Berkum, 1997). One year later, La Heij et al. (1998) replicated Schriefers

(1993) results with L1 Dutch speakers when they were asked to name images using the definite article + noun, but found no gender-congruency effect when the same speakers were asked to name images using the bare noun. The researchers argued that this pattern of results, with participants only showing a gender-congruency effect when gender was explicitly required by the context, was in line with either the WEAVER++ model (e.g., Jescheniak & Levelt, 1994;

Roelofs, 1992), which claims that gender is only selected when required by context, or the

Independent Network Model (Caramazza, 1997), which claims that selection at the syntactic level (where gender is stored) is skipped unless required by the context.

Schriefers and Teruel (2000) extended the investigation of the gender-congruency effect to German by asking L1 German speakers to name images with the definite article + adjective + noun (Experiment 1) or with the definite article + noun (Experiment 2). In both cases (each of which required computation of gender agreement) they replicated the results of the previous studies with Dutch (La Heij et al., 1998; Schriefers, 1993; van Berkum, 1997) and found a gender-congruency effect, with the German-speaking participants naming congruent target- distractor pairs more quickly than incongruent pairs.

Despite the robustness of the gender-congruency effect in Germanic languages (when naming with the gender-specific determiner + noun), researchers found a different pattern of

24 results when they began to test speakers of Romance languages. In the first study to look for the effect in a Romance language, Miozzo and Caramazza (1999) found no difference in naming latencies between congruent and incongruent target-distractor pairs with L1 Italian speakers naming pictures with the determiner + noun.4 A similar pattern appeared when L1 French speakers were asked to name images with gender-specific determiners + adjectives and no gender-congruency effect was observed (Alario & Caramazza, 2002). Similarly, Miozzo et al.

(2002) found no gender-congruency effect in either a group of L1 Italian speakers or with L1

Spanish speakers when asked to name images using the determiner + noun.

The failure to find any gender-congruency effects in these languages led the researchers to suggest that the locus of the gender-congruency effect is in the selection of the determiner and not of gender itself. This claim was further strengthened by Schiller and Caramazza (2003), who compared L1 German and L1 Dutch speakers’ performance on singular versus plural determiners in a picture-word interference paradigm. In these two languages, a single plural determiner (here in the form of the definite article) is used regardless of the gender of the noun. If the gender- congruency effect is actually a determiner-congruency effect, it should only appear when naming in the singular, where the definite article is unique for nouns belonging to gender category in

German and Dutch. Results indeed showed this pattern, leading researchers to claim, as Miozzo and Caramazza (1999) had, that the gender-congruency effect was a result of determiner and not gender selection. Miozzo et al. (2002) went on to posit that there may be differences between

“early-” (e.g., German) and “late-selection” languages (e.g., Italian) with regard to determiner selection and that this is precisely what is driving the lack of a “gender”-congruency effect in languages like Italian and Spanish. In Italian, considered a late-selection language, the selection

4 In Experiment 4, Miozzo and Caramazza also included a bare noun task, but the results showing that no gender- congruency effect was present are not broken down by task type (bare noun vs. determiner + noun). 25 of the determiner is dependent upon the phonological onset of the following noun, or if an adjective intercedes between determiner and noun, selection is dependent up the onset of the adjective. In contrast to German, an early-selection language, in which the determiner of a noun can be selected when the noun itself is selected, in a late-selection language, the speaker must wait to select the determiner until the phonological context of any intervening adjectives in known. Due to the delay experienced by speakers of late-selection languages, any gender- congruency effect would be masked by the additional latencies. In contrast to the above studies showing a lack of a gender-congruency effect in Romance languages (when naming with a gender-specific determiner), a second study using L1 French speakers found that L1 French speakers naming with the determiner + noun did not show a gender-congruency effect at a 0 millisecond stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) (i.e., the target and distractor appeared simultaneously on the screen), but did name congruent target-distractor pairs faster than incongruent pairs at +200 milliseconds SOA (i.e., the distractor appeared 200 milliseconds after the target) (Foucart et al., 2010). The authors, similar to Miozzo et al. (2002), explain their results in terms of early versus late (determiner) selection. In French, there are two definite

articles: le-MASC and la-FEM. When a noun begins with a vowel, both the masculine and feminine articles elide to l’ (i.e., a gender distinction no longer exists on the determiner). However, just as with Italian, if an adjective intervenes between the article and the noun, the article may change based on the onset of the adjective. The authors argue that French is actually an early-selection language like German or Dutch (and unlike other Romance languages like Spanish and Italian), but that, because the phonological context of the word following the article has repercussions for article selection, French speakers may make a “late phonetic adjustment” (pg. 5) to reduce the

26 originally selected article – le or la – to l’. This late adjustment explains why the gender- congruency effect was only found at +200 SOA and not at 0 SOA.

Cubelli et al. (2005) had two groups of L1 Italian speakers complete the picture-word interference paradigm. The first group named images using the bare noun and the second group named images using the definite article + noun. The latter group produced no gender-congruency effect, in line with previous studies with Italian speakers (Miozzo & Caramazza, 1999; Miozzo et al., 2002). However, a gender-congruency effect was present in the group who named images with the bare noun, in contrast to results obtained with Dutch (e.g., La Heij et al., 1998). This was the first time a gender-congruency effect was found with Italian speakers and interestingly, the direction of effect was reversed compared to previous findings with Germanic languages: congruent target-distractor pairs were named slower than incongruent pairs. To explain these results, Cubelli and colleagues attribute the gender-congruency effect in L1 Italian speakers to competition between words that share the same gender, similar to semantic competition between semantically-related words, which has been well documented using the picture-word interference paradigm (e.g., Schriefers, 1992). In other words, instead of facilitation, congruent pairs lead to competition during processing, slowing down naming times, whereas incongruent pairs do not compete for selection and therefore do not slow down processing. To account for differences between Germanic and Romance languages between bare noun and determiner + noun naming, the authors propose the Double Selection Model (see Section 2.1.1.3 for a detailed description of this model).

More recent studies have replicated the results from Cubelli et al. (2005) with new groups of L1 Italian speakers (Paolieri, Lotto, et al., 2010; Paolieri et al., 2011), as well as with L1

Spanish speakers (Paolieri, Lotto, et al., 2010), lending more support to the Double Selection

Model (Cubelli et al., 2005) and providing evidence against the idea that the gender-congruency effect is actually a determiner-congruency effect (e.g., Miozzo & Caramazza, 1999; Schiller &

Caramazza, 2003).

Table 1. Overview of the gender-congruency effect in L1 speakers Language Family Bare Noun Determiner+Noun

Germanic No effect found Congruent

Romance Incongruent

In summary, in the many studies presented above with monolinguals, diverging patterns emerge with regard to the gender-congruency effect (see Table 1), and no one model or hypothesis can explain the findings when taken together. In the Germanic languages, such as

Dutch and German, the gender-congruency effect is repeatedly observed in tasks which require images to be named along with gender-specific determiners and/or adjectives and is absent in tasks which require naming with the bare noun only. In these languages, congruent target- distractor pairs are named faster than incongruent pairs. In contrast, studies looking at Romance languages (specifically Spanish and Italian, with French producing slightly different results) show a different pattern of results. Here, the gender-congruency effect appears in the bare noun naming condition, but not in conditions in which gender information is required for naming (e.g., determiner + noun naming). Additionally, the direction of the gender-congruency effect is reversed as compared to the effect observed with Germanic languages: incongruent target- distractor pairs are named faster than congruent pairs. No one explanation to date can fully account for the diversity of results found with monolinguals of different languages. Critically, all of the studies discussed above used the picture-word interference paradigm. Though this task has

28 certainly provided a unique way to get at questions regarding the process of gender selection in monolingual speakers, it is an imperfect method as it lacks ecological validity. By providing a superficial competitor for selection (i.e., the distractor word), this method risks confounding the results obtained through its use. Perhaps a methodology that more closely recreates real-world language use would provide clearer results.

2.3 Parallel Activation in Bilinguals

In order to find a more ecological way to investigate the process of gender selection, a bilingual rather than a monolingual population may be better suited. To understand how and why bilinguals offer a more natural way to investigate open questions in the monolingual language production literature, some general information about bilingual language processing is provided in the following section.

2.3.1 Parallel Activation and Cross-Language Interaction

One sentence emerges repeatedly in research on bilingualism: a bilingual speaker is not two monolinguals in one person (e.g., Kroll et al., 2012). More precisely, Grosjean has stated that “the bilingual is NOT the sum of two complete or incomplete monolinguals; rather, he or she has a unique and specific linguistic configuration” (Grosjean, 1989, p. 3). These statements describe in concise terms what decades of research have demonstrated; bilinguals cannot keep their two languages completely separated and therefore cannot eliminate influence from their other language(s) when they are processing in one language. This phenomenon is known as language non-selectivity or parallel activation.

Researchers find evidence for parallel activation of languages in bilinguals by measuring a consequence of parallel activation: cross-language interaction. Because bilinguals cannot shut off the language not currently in use “on demand,” both languages remain active and often

29 interact during processing. In order to ensure that the language required in a particular context is the language used, one line of research argues that bilinguals must inhibit the language not in use

(known as the Inhibitory Control Model, Green, 1998) (see also Kroll et al., 2008; and Kroll &

Gollan, 2014 for reviews of research supporting both an inhibitory account as well as alternative hypotheses). This inhibition ensures that the proper language is used, but this inhibition does not fully eliminate cross-language interaction. To determine the extent to which both languages of a bilingual interact during processing, researchers measure the influence of the language not in use on the language currently in use by employing a variety of experimental tasks in both bilingual language comprehension (e.g., lexical decision, word naming) and language production (e.g., picture naming, translation, and Stroop tasks) (see Kroll et al., 2012 for review).

Compelling evidence for parallel activation at the lexical level comes from picture naming experiments in which bilinguals are asked to name images that represent cognates, or words that share form and meaning between languages, and non-cognates, or words with a unique form in each language, in their two languages. Research has shown that when bilinguals name images in one of their two languages, they tend to name cognates faster than non-cognates

(e.g., Costa et al., 2000; see also van Hell & Tanner, 2012 for review), whereas monolinguals experience no difference in naming times on the same experimental items. This so-called

“cognate effect” is evidence that languages interact during production as a result of language non-selectivity or parallel activation. When a bilingual encounters an image to be named, this concept activates lexical items in both languages. For example, if a German-Italian bilingual sees an image of a “moon,” this activates both the German term Mond and the Italian translation equivalent luna, two unique forms connected to a shared concept (making them non-cognates between German and Italian). Before the image can be named, competition between the two

30 lexical items must be overcome and the correct language’s item selected. This competition adds to the processing time required to produce the word for “moon” in the desired language. In contrast, if the same speaker encounters an image of a coffee, this activates the German Kaffee and the Italian caffè which are phonologically identical and considered cognates between these two languages. In other words, for this bilingual speaker, the concept of a “coffee” is connected to a single lexical item (Kaffee caffè) which means that the image can be named with the same word regardless of language. In this case there is therefore no competition to overcome, and the speaker thus names the cognate (e.g., “coffee”) more quickly than the non-cognate (e.g.,

“moon”) (but see Sánchez-Casas & García-Albea, 2005 for alternative explanation of cognate effects).

Evidence for parallel activation and the resulting cross-language interaction has been found in both comprehension (e.g., Sunderman & Kroll, 2006; Thierry & Wu, 2007) and production (e.g., Christoffels, de Groot, & Kroll, 2006; Costa et al., 2000). In addition to finding evidence of such interaction in tasks requiring participants to process isolated words out of context, interaction is also present when speakers are processing complete sentences in one of their two languages, such that the language context might constrain cross-language interaction

(e.g., Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Starreveld et al., 2013; Titone, Libben, Mercier, Whitford, &

Pivneva, 2011; van Hell & de Groot, 2008). Cross-language interaction has been detected even when speakers are tested completely in monolingual mode and are unaware that their bilingualism is under investigation (van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002).

2.3.2 Influence of L2 on the L1

While the majority of studies looking at cross-language interaction have focused on the influence of the more-dominant L1 on the less-dominant L2, increasingly studies have shown

31 that the L2 also influences the L1 during language processing (e.g., Dussias & Sagarra, 2007;

Hatzidaki, Branigan, & Pickering, 2011; Linck et al., 2009; Major, 1992; van Hell & Dijkstra,

2002; see Schmid & Köpke, 2007 for general discussion of L2-to-L1 influence). The L2 can temporarily or more permanently influence the L1 depending in part on the amount of time spent in the L2 environment. For example, L2-to-L1 influence has been observed in bilinguals in monolingual mode living in their L1 environment (e.g., van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002), in language learners during a semester-long study abroad (e.g., Linck et al., 2009), and in speakers who have lived for an extended time in the L2 environment (e.g., Dussias, 2003; Dussias & Sagarra, 2007;

Major, 1992).

2.4 The Gender-Congruency Effect in Bilinguals

In addition to the lexical, syntactic, and phonological levels, cross-language interaction also occurs at the grammatical level. One way to measure the amount of cross-language interaction at the grammatical level is by measuring the interaction present between a bilingual’s two gender systems. In addition to providing evidence for cross-language interaction at the grammatical level, this line of research may also provide a more ecological way to address questions regarding gender processing left unanswered by (monolingual) language production models.

Scholars have looked for the presence of the gender-congruency effect in bilingual populations whose two languages contain grammatical gender. Instead of the picture-word interference paradigm, bilinguals complete picture naming and translation tasks to measure interaction between languages (e.g., Bordag & Pechmann, 2007; Paolieri, Cubelli, Macizo, Bajo,

Lotto, & Job, 2010; Salamoura & Williams, 2007). In these tasks, the target is the image to be named or word to be translated and the distractor is the word’s translation in the language not in

32 use. For example, if an L1 German-L2 Italian participant is asked to name an image of a “cat” in their L2 Italian, they would say gatto, but the translation of “cat” in German (Katze) acts as a built-in distractor. Gender congruency here is manipulated by finding target-distractor pairs (i.e.,

L1-L2 translations of a target image) whose gender between languages is congruent (as in example 2a) and contrasting the naming times of those with target-distractor pairs whose gender differs between languages (as in example 2b).

(2a) (il) cane-MASC – (der) Hund-MASC (gender congruent)

(2b) (il) gatto-MASC – (die) Katze-FEM (gender incongruent)

By investigating noun and gender production in bilinguals, researchers can determine whether cross-language interaction occurs at the grammatical level by measuring the extent to which the gender system of the language not in use influences the gender system of the language currently being used. If, as in the monolingual research, bilinguals show a gender-congruency effect by naming images whose gender is the same in both languages (gender congruent, henceforth referred to simply as “congruent”) faster or slower than those whose gender is not the same in both languages (gender incongruent, henceforth referred to simply as “incongruent”), this is evidence that languages indeed interact at the grammatical level. Although the primary goal of investigating the gender-congruency effect in bilinguals is to measure the interactivity of gender systems, this methodology has the potential to provide a more ecologically valid method for answering questions left open by (monolingual) language production models.

Costa, Kovacic, Franck, and Caramazza (2003) were the first to look for the gender- congruency effect in bilinguals. They asked a variety of nearly balanced bilingual populations

(L1 Croatian-L2 Italian, L1 Spanish-L2 Catalan and L1 Catalan-L2 Spanish, L1 Italian-L2

French) to name images in their respective L2s using either the definite article + noun or the

33 definite article + adjective + noun. Though language environment is not reported for all language groups, the L1 Croatian-L2 Italian speakers (Experiments 1-3) grew up in a bilingual community in Croatia and were living in the L2 Italian environment at the time of testing. Results across groups showed no significant differences in naming times between images that were gender congruent and images that were gender incongruent across speakers’ languages. The analyses of the error rates for each experiment also showed a lack of any gender-congruency effect. The authors took this as evidence that a bilingual’s two gender systems operate independently and do not interact with each other during language production.

As will be described in greater detail below, the results obtained in the original Costa,

Kovacic, Franck, et al. (2003) study differ from those obtained in the majority of studies conducted thereafter. One possible explanation for this is that their study used a mixture of cognates and non-cognates, which may have masked any gender effects (as suggested by

Lemhöfer, Spalek, & Schriefers, 2008). Furthermore, the bilinguals tested in Costa, Kovacic,

Franck, et al. (2003) were “highly proficient, nearly balanced bilinguals” (as suggested by

Salamoura & Williams, 2007, p. 260) in contrast to the bilinguals in many of the more recent studies. The lack of a gender-congruency effect, therefore, may be restricted to only populations of balanced bilinguals. Finally, in three of their five experiments, group size was small, with just ten participants per group, which may be an additional factor driving the lack of any effects.

Following the Costa, Kovacic, Franck, et al. (2003) study, Bordag (2004) tested two groups of bilinguals: the first was a group of intermediate – low advanced proficiency L1

German-L2 Czech learners living in the L1 environment (Germany) and the second was a group of intermediate – advanced L1 Czech-L2 German learners living in the L2 environment

(Germany). Both groups completed the same picture naming task in which they were asked to

34 name images as bare nouns or with an adjective + noun in the L2. Fillers, to be named in each group’s respective L1, were included in order to keep participants in bilingual mode (these fillers were not analyzed). Results for both groups showed that they named congruent images significantly faster than incongruent images and did so in both the bare noun and the adjective + noun naming conditions. In addition, in the gender error rates for the adjective + noun condition, both groups made more gender errors when naming incongruent than congruent images.

Salamoura and Williams (2007) tested advanced L1 Greek-L2 German bilinguals living in their

L1 Greek environment using a translation task. Participants were asked to translate L1 Greek words into L2 German using either the bare noun or a gender-marked adjective + noun. Results showed a clear gender-congruency effect, with congruent pairs translated faster than incongruent pairs, but only in the adjective + noun condition where computation of gender agreement was required. Researchers also analyzed the error rates and found no gender-congruency effect in bare noun naming, but did find an effect in adjective + noun naming. In this case, there were significantly more total errors when words were incongruent than when they were congruent, but only for cognates. Using a picture naming task, Bordag and Pechmann (2007) asked advanced

L1 Czech-L2 German bilinguals living in the L1 environment (Germany) to name images using bare nouns or gender-marked adjective + noun phrases. Results showed a gender-congruency effect in both the bare noun and in the adjective + noun naming conditions. Unlike Bordag

(2004) however, no gender-congruency effect in gender errors was observed. A year later,

Bordag and Pechmann (2008) used the same population of bilinguals and the same materials but this time conducted a translation task. Participants translated L1 Czech words into the L2

German using either the bare noun or an adjective + noun phrase. In contrast to Bordag and

Pechmann (2007), the authors found no evidence of a gender-congruency effect on either task.

Interestingly, they did observe a gender-congruency effect in the number of gender errors in one of the two experiments manipulating gender-congruency in the adjective + noun condition. The authors tentatively attribute the differences in the naming time results between the 2007 and

2008 studies to task type; the time course of processing in translation tasks is such that the L2 gender node is activated only after the L1 gender node in contrast to picture naming tasks in which both nodes are activated simultaneously. However, as Salmoura and Williams (2007) did find a gender-congruency effect using a translation task, differences in task type are likely not a complete explanation for the lack of an effect in this particular study. Combined, this wave of studies following Costa, Kovacic, Franck, et al. (2003), provides evidence in three distinct populations for the interaction of gender systems in bilinguals. Additionally, the studies above make clear that in addition to finding gender-congruency effects in the naming time data, this effect may also appear in the analysis of error rates.

Lemhöfer et al. (2008) conducted two picture naming experiments with advanced L1

German-L2 Dutch bilinguals living in the L2 environment (the Netherlands). In the first experiment, participants named images in L2 Dutch using either the bare noun or a definite article + noun phrase. Results showed no gender-congruency effect in the naming time data, but did show a gender-congruency effect in the error rates, with more errors made on incongruent than on congruent images and more errors in the determiner + noun condition than in the bare noun condition. Due to the high error rates overall in this experiment (specifically with regard to participants’ inability to consistently assign gender correctly despite completing a familiarization phase prior to testing), another experiment was conducted with the same population (Lemhöfer et al., 2008; also reported in Lemhöfer, Schriefers, & Hanique, 2010). This time, however, participants were given gender assignment training prior to completing the picture naming task.

The training was effective in reducing gender assignment errors, especially with regard to congruent images. In the analysis of error rates, significantly more errors were made on incongruent compared to congruent images in the determiner + noun naming condition (but not in the bare noun naming condition), especially among cognate items. In this final experiment, there was a gender-congruency effect in the naming time analyses, with participants naming congruent images faster than incongruent images in the determiner + noun naming condition (but not in the bare noun naming condition), especially among non-cognate items. Additional analyses revealed that all of these gender-congruency effects were driven by so-called “unstable” items, in which participants exhibited more variable gender assignment accuracy during the training task. Lemhöfer et al. interpret this finding to suggest that at least among this population, gender-congruency effects may be exacerbated by difficulties in learning the correct L2 gender for items with incongruent gender assignment across a bilingual’s two languages.

Paolieri, Cubelli, et al. (2010) tested intermediate to highly-proficient L1 Italian-L2

Spanish bilinguals living in their L2 environment (Spain). Across two picture naming experiments and one translation task they found a gender-congruency effect as evidenced in previous studies (Bordag, 2004; Bordag & Pechmann, 2007; Salamoura & Williams, 2007); speakers named images/words faster when the gender was congruent across languages. Here they did so in both bare noun and definite article + noun naming conditions, similar to Bordag (2004) and Bordag and Pechmann (2007). In analyzing the error rates, they found no effect of gender- congruency in any of the three experiments. This study demonstrates that the gender-congruency effect in bilinguals whose two languages (Spanish and Italian) belong to the Romance language family goes in the same direction as observed with monolingual speakers of Germanic languages

(i.e., congruent images are named faster than incongruent images). This contrasts with the

37 directional pattern observed in monolingual Spanish and Italian speakers (i.e., incongruent images are named faster than congruent images) (e.g., Paolieri, Lotto, et al., 2010).

Morales et al. (2011) also tested an L1 Italian-L2 Spanish population living in the L2 environment (Spain) using a picture naming study. This study is the first, and to date the only study, in which the same group of bilinguals was asked to name images in their L2 (with the bare noun) as well as in their L1 (with the definite article + noun), with data from both languages analyzed. Results showed a significant gender-congruency effect in the L2. In the L1, error rates

(which included words and/or their articles that had been named incorrectly in the L2 naming task) showed that significantly more errors were made naming incongruent images than congruent images. Furthermore, a gender-congruency effect in the naming time data was present in the L1 only for images that had been named (either one time or five times) in the L2 in a naming task completed just prior to naming in the L1, but not for words whose images had not appeared in the L2 naming task. Thus, the authors replicated the gender-congruency effect in the

L2 found in previous studies (e.g., Paolieri, Cubelli, et al., 2010) and demonstrated that a gender- congruency effect can also appear in the L1, albeit only for words that have been highly activated in the L2 immediately prior to naming in the L1. The authors attribute this finding to the inhibition of the L1 that occurs when participants are asked to name words in their less- dominant L2. When speakers are then asked to name the same images in their L1, they experience a combination of the L2 having a high activation level and having to simultaneously overcome the previous inhibition of the lexical items in the L1. This leads to elevated influence from the L2 gender system on the L1 gender system and thus results in a gender-congruency effect.

Morales, Paolieri, Cubelli, and Bajo (2014) investigated the L1 gender system’s influence on the L2 in a novel way. They tested two groups of L1 Spanish-L2 English bilinguals, whose first language contains grammatical gender, but whose second language does not. The first group was living in the L1 environment (Spain) and the second was living in the L2 environment

(United States). Using a picture-word interference task conducted entirely in participants’ L2

English, they manipulated images such that the target image to be named (in L2 English) and the distractor word (displayed in L2 English) had either congruent or incongruent genders in L1

Spanish. The error rates in this study were so low that no error rate analysis was performed on these data. They found that bilinguals tested in the L1 Spanish environment showed a gender- congruency effect in L2 English, while the bilinguals immersed in the L2 English environment, did not show this effect. This finding shows two important things. First, the L1 gender representations are activated even when communicating in an L2 in which no gender computation is required. Second, the effect was influenced by language environment; speakers in the L1 Spanish environment who were using their L1 Spanish more often showed the gender- congruency effect, while the speakers in the L2 English environment, who had more practice inhibiting their L1 Spanish, showed no effect.

Klassen (2016) chose a population of bilinguals, L1 Spanish-L2 German speakers living in the L1 environment (Spain), whose gender systems are asymmetrical. Spanish categorizes nouns as either feminine or masculine, but German categorizes nouns as feminine, masculine, or neuter. In order to determine what happens to the gender-congruency effect when a unique category is present in one of their two languages, she asked participants to name images that were either congruent, incongruent, or neuter-incongruent (i.e., neuter in German, masculine or feminine in Spanish) in their L2 Spanish using either the bare noun or the definite article + noun.

Analysis of error rates showed that significantly more errors were made in naming incongruent as compared to congruent and neuter-incongruent images and this was true in both bare noun and determiner + noun naming. The naming data showed a gender-congruency effect in both conditions, with congruent items named faster than incongruent items. Neuter-incongruent items were named significantly faster than incongruent items, but not significantly faster or slower than congruent items. The author attributes this finding to the uniqueness of the neuter gender node.

Unlike when the masculine and feminine nodes are both activated for an incongruent image, when an image is neuter in the L2 –and therefore has no direct competitor in the L1- the gender node is encoded as a separate and unique node which receives no interference from the nodes that exist in the L2 (masculine and feminine).

Table 2. Summary of studies looking at the bilingual gender-congruency effect Study Speakers Testing Proficiency Task Gender-congruency Location effect? BN NP Costa, Kovacic, Croatian-Italian; not stated balanced PicNam n/a no Franck, et al. (2003) Catalan-Spanish, Spanish-Catalan; Italian-French Bordag (2004) German-Czech L1 int. – low PicNam yes yes Czech-German L2 adv. yes yes int. – adv. Salamoura & Greek-German L1 advanced Transl. no yes Williams (2007) Bordag & Pechmann Czech-German L2 advanced PicNam yes yes (2007) Bordag & Pechmann Czech-German L2 advanced Transl. no no (2008) Lemhoefer et al. German-Dutch L2 advanced PicNam no yes5 (2008) w/training Paolieri, Cubelli, et Italian-Spanish L2 advanced PicNam yes yes al. (2010) Transl. yes yes Morales et al. (2011) Italian-Spanish L2 advanced PicNam yes (L2) yes (L1)6 Klassen (2016) Spanish-German L1 intermed. PicNam yes yes

Table 2 offers a summary of the picture naming studies discussed above. Taken together, this body of research into the gender-congruency effect in bilinguals produces some notable patterns. First, with the exception of one study (Costa, Kovacic, Franck, et al., 2003), all of the studies that employed a picture naming task found a gender-congruency effect, demonstrating that the gender systems of a bilingual interact during production. The two studies to rely solely on a translation task found conflicting results: Bordag & Pechmann (2008) found no gender-

5 This effect was driven by the naming of cognates. 6 Only for words named immediately prior in the L2 Spanish. Words that were not named previously in the L2 Spanish, produced no gender-congruency effect in the L1. 41 congruency effect, despite testing the same population and using the same materials they used in a previous picture naming study in which an effect was observed (Bordag & Pechmann, 2007);

Salamoura and Williams (2007) found a gender-congruency effect, but only in the adjective + noun naming condition. These findings demonstrate two things: 1) the gender-congruency effect is robust across various populations and proficiency levels; 2) the processes involved in picture naming may be more suited to measuring a gender-congruency effect than those involved in the translation task. Second, despite differences observed in the monolingual data, the gender- congruency effect observed in bilinguals manifests itself by speakers naming congruent images faster than incongruent images (and likewise in translation tasks, by translating congruent words faster than incongruent words). In none of the studies described here did the effect go in the opposite direction (i.e., gender congruent > gender incongruent), as it did in monolingual studies with Italian and Spanish speakers (e.g., Cubelli et al., 2005; Paolieri, Cubelli, et al., 2010). Third, studies differed with regard to the conditions under which the gender-congruency effect was present. While many studies found a gender-congruency effect in both bare noun and determiner or adjective + noun naming conditions (Bordag & Pechmann, 2007; Klassen, 2016; Morales et al., 2011; Paolieri, Cubelli, et al., 2010), other studies observed the effect only in the determiner

+ noun or adjective + noun naming conditions (Lemhöfer et al., 2008; Salamoura & Williams,

2007). Fourth, the gender-congruency effect also appears in error rates (e.g., Bordag &

Pechmann, 2008; Klassen, 2016; Morales et al., 2011). Although researchers analyzed errors rates in different ways (e.g., Bordag & Pechmann, 2008 looked at gender errors only; Lemhöfer et al., 2008 used overall error rates), all but three studies that analyzed error rates found a gender- congruency effect (Bordag & Pechmann, 2007; Costa, Kovacic, Franck, et al., 2003; Paolieri,

Cubelli, et al., 2010). Furthermore, this effect always manifested itself with speakers making more errors on incongruent than congruent words.

This previous research into the gender-congruency effect revealed some additional findings of interest. First, the only study to explore whether a gender-congruency effect appears in the L1 (Morales et al., 2011) found the effect, but only with images that had been named previously in the L2, suggesting that at the grammatical level, the L2’s influence on the L1 is limited to situations when activation of the L2 is especially high. Second, only Klassen (2016) systematically explored asymmetrical gender systems, finding that nouns belonging to the unique gender category patterned with congruent nouns: they were named significantly faster than incongruent nouns. This same study was also the only study to look at a bilingual population that speaks one Romance and one Germanic language (Spanish – German), with the Germanic language as their L2.

The current study will add to the body of research on gender interaction in bilinguals by testing a unique population of speakers and extending the experimental design to address unresolved questions in the literature. Highly-proficient, but still L1 dominant, L1 German-L2

Italian bilinguals will complete a series of picture naming tasks in both their L1 German and their L2 Italian. Speakers will be asked to name images with a bare noun and with the definite article + noun. Additionally, the current study will manipulate language environment, environmental context, and language background to measure their potential effects on the presence of the gender-congruency effect.

2.4.1 Gender in German and Italian

As the current study uses German-Italian bilinguals to investigate cross-language interaction of gender systems, a brief discussion of gender in both languages is necessary. The

43 gender systems of German and Italian differ from one another in a number of ways. First,

German has three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), while Italian has just two

(masculine and feminine). For bilinguals who speak both languages, their gender systems are therefore “asymmetric” (Klassen, 2016). Second, German and Italian nouns differ in their termination regularities. In Italian, 71.5% of nouns are phonologically transparent (Chini, 1998), meaning that the noun’s ending acts as a clue to the gender of the noun. In German, however, there are fewer reliable gender-specific noun terminations and many of these are tendencies with many exceptions (Köpcke & Zubin, 1983; 1984). Gender in German is thus considered to be opaque relative to languages like Italian, such that in most cases a speaker cannot determine the gender of a noun with certainty solely by looking at its ending. Third, although both Italian and

German use gender agreement, the two languages differ somewhat on where and when agreement is required. In German, agreement is required on determiners, attributive and possessive adjectives, and pronouns. Similarly, in Italian agreement is required on determiners, attributive and possessive adjectives, and pronouns, but also on predicative adjectives and the past participle of the verb.

In spite of the differences between the German and Italian gender systems outlined above, both languages use grammatical gender systems in contrast to a strictly natural or semantic gender system, meaning that gender categorization is arbitrary. Because of this, words that take a particular gender in Italian may or may not share that same gender in German. For example, the word for “sun” in German is feminine (Sonne), while in Italian it is masculine

(sole), yet the word “church” is feminine in both languages (Kirche in German and chiesa in

Italian). Between Italian and German there exists an historical overlap in that some lexical items in the two languages may have at one time shared genders between nouns that they borrowed

44 from a common language (e.g., Latin). However, as the languages changed over the centuries, many genders were changed as well.

Relevant to the current study, Table 3 shows the definite articles used in German and

Italian. Note that each gender has a unique article for nouns belonging to each gender class.7 In

Italian, an alternation exists in the masculine definite article between il and lo. Il is the more common article, but whenever the phonological onset of a word contains a /z/, /s/+consonant, /x/,

/y/, or affricates, lo must be used instead.

Table 3. The definite articles in German and Italian (nominative case)

Gender German Italian

masculine der il / lo

feminine die la

neuter das n/a

2.5 The Effect of Environmental and Experimental Contexts on Lexical Access

As the research outlined above makes clear, grammatical gender systems interact in bilinguals during language production. What is less well understood is what speaker-external factors influence this interaction at the grammatical level. Though no systematic investigation into the role of such factors has been done on interaction at the grammatical level, it is clear from research on lexical access that language interaction at the lexical level is susceptible to speaker- external influences. Lexical access can be affected by a variety of factors including, but not

7 Note that this is only true in the nominative (shown here) and accusative cases in German. In the dative and genitive cases, case syncretism means that not all articles are gender transparent. 45 limited to, language environment (e.g., Baus, Costa, & Carreiras, 2013; Linck et al., 2009;

Morales et al., 2014) and experimental context (e.g., Levy, McVeigh, Marful, & Anderson, 2007;

Morales et al., 2011; Starreveld et al., 2013). These two factors, and their effects on lexical access, are discussed below.

2.5.1 Language Environment

Linck et al. (2009) investigated the role that language environment plays on lexical access in both the L1 and the L2. Two groups of L1 English-L2 Spanish learners from the United

States were asked to complete a verbal fluency task in each language, in which they were given a series of semantic categories (e.g., animals) and had 30 seconds to name as many exemplars belonging to that category as possible. One group was living in the United States (L1 environment group) and learning Spanish in the classroom, while the second group (immersed group) was participating in a study abroad semester in Spain. Results showed that the immersed group could name more words in their L2 Spanish than the L1 environment group. More interestingly, the immersed group named fewer words in their L1 English as compared to the group in the L1 environment. When a subset of the immersed group was retested six months after they returned to the United States, they maintained the number of exemplars they could name in L2 Spanish, but increased the number of exemplars in their L1 English compared to the number produced while they were in Spain. The authors explain their results with an inhibitory account. While the learners were in the L2 environment, they used more L2 Spanish and less L1

English and were therefore more practiced at inhibiting the L1. When they returned to the United

States, and used more English and less Spanish compared to what they had used while immersed in the L2 environment, the need to inhibit the L1 was reduced, thus allowing them quicker access to their L1 lexicon.

Baus et al. (2013) followed up the Linck et al. (2009) study by testing L1 German-L2

Spanish learners immersed in the L2 Spanish environment by having them complete a picture naming task and a verbal fluency task in the L1. They tested this group both upon arrival in

Spain (“test”) and after a semester of living in Spain (“retest”) in order to compare longitudinally the effects of L2 immersion on the L1. Additionally, they manipulated cognate status and the frequency of the words used in both tasks. In the verbal fluency task they found that while the overall number of exemplars produced in the L1 did not change from the first test to the retest, learners produced fewer non-cognates at the retest as compared to the first testing upon arrival in

Spain. In the picture naming task, also in the L1, naming latencies increased on the retest, but only on non-cognate and low-frequency words. Based on the finding that immersion effects on the L1 were most pronounced for lower frequency and non-cognate words, the authors concluded that their results are best explained through a weaker links account (e.g., Gollan, Montoya, Cera,

& Sandoval, 2008). This account states that a reduction in L1 lexical access is most pronounced for less-frequent words. They also suggest that reaction time (RT) experiments, such as the picture naming task they used, are more sensitive to within-speaker changes in L1 lexical access compared to the verbal fluency task.

Language environment can also influence lexical access at the grammatical level.

Morales et al. (2014) investigated the amount of cross-language interaction present with regard to grammatical gender when the L1 contains a gender system and the L2 does not. L1 Spanish-

L2 English bilinguals were tested in their L2 English using the picture-word interference paradigm. Target and distractor pairs were manipulated for gender congruency in the L1

Spanish, but the entire task was conducted in participants’ L2 English. Results showed a gender- congruency effect in a group of bilinguals living in the L1 Spanish environment, but this effect

47 was not present in a group of bilinguals immersed in the L2 English environment. This study, in conjunction with Linck et al. (2009), demonstrates that immersion in the L2 environment and the corresponding increased inhibition of the L1, attenuates access to the L1, thereby reducing influence of the L1 on the L2 during processing.

Critically, the studies discussed above each make a clear distinction between the L1 and the L2 environment. However, even within each of these environments, “bilinguals in their everyday lives find themselves in various language modes that correspond to points on a monolingual-bilingual mode continuum” and “it is important to know the language mode bilinguals are in when we examine their interferences” (Grosjean, 1998, p. 175). In other words, despite living in the L1 environment, a bilingual may use her L2 a large percentage of the time just as a bilingual living in the L2 environment may use her L1 a large percentage of the time.

Researchers should therefore take care to collect information regarding specific language use patterns of individual speakers – regardless of overall language environment (e.g., L1 vs. L2) - in order to form a better picture of the nature of the individual speaker’s bilingualism within a given global language environment.

2.5.2 Experimental Language Context

Studies have also found an effect of experimental language context on lexical access at both the lexical (e.g., Levy et al., 2007) and grammatical levels (e.g., Morales et al., 2011). In addition, studies have shown that cross-language interaction at the lexical level can be reduced or eliminated based on experimental context (e.g., Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Starreveld et al., 2013).

Morales et al. (2011) asked L1 Italian-L2 Italian participants to name images in their L2

Spanish. Some images appeared just one time, while others were repeated five times.

Immediately following this task in the L2, participants were then asked to name the same images

48 in their L1 Italian using the definite article + noun along with some novel images that had not appeared in the L2 naming task. Results showed no gender-congruency effect in the novel nouns

(i.e., those that had not been named in the L2 naming task immediately prior to naming in the

L1), but a significant gender-congruency effect for images that had previously been named in the

L2 Spanish. This was true both for images that had been named just once in the L2 as well as for images that had been named five times in the L2. These results demonstrate that when activation of the L2 is increased immediately prior to use of the L1, the amount of interaction between languages is increased. The authors explain this with an inhibition account: when speakers are naming in the L2 they are forced to inhibit their L1 and when they then return to their L1, this inhibition must be overcome. Critically, this study shows that such effects are present not only on the lexical item itself as previous studies have shown (e.g., Levy et al., 2007), but also at the grammatical level.

Another way in which researchers have investigated the role of context on levels of cross- language interaction in bilinguals is by investigating what happens to the robust cognate effect when instead of naming pictures in isolation, bilinguals are asked to recognize words or name images embedded in L1 or L2 sentences (e.g., Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Starreveld et al., 2013; van Hell & de Groot, 2008). Is providing speakers with a specific-language context enough to mitigate the amount of cross-language interaction that occurs at the lexical level? Specifically, the studies mentioned here also manipulated sentences for constraint. High-constraint sentences are those in which the target word or image is predictable from context whereas low-constraint sentences are those in which the target word or image is not predictable from the context. Here the question is whether the high-constraint sentences constrain potential responses enough to

49 reduce or even eliminate interference from the language not in use. In other words, does the cognate effect disappear when speakers are presented with a high-constraint sentence?

Starreveld et al. (2013) asked L1 Dutch-L2 English bilinguals to name pictures embedded in either an L1 or an L2 sentence context. Two groups of participants were used: the first completed the task in their L1 Dutch and the second completed the task in their L2 English.

Sentence constraint was also manipulated, such that speakers were presented with both low- and high-constraint sentences. Results showed first that the cognate effect (i.e., cognates named faster than non-cognates) was stronger in the L2 English than in the L1 Dutch. Further, the effect was stronger in low-constraint sentences, in which the target was not predictable, than in high- constraint sentences. Finally, the cognate effect disappeared when speakers named images in high-constraint sentences in the L1 Dutch, demonstrating that at this level of constraint (both in terms of language constraint and semantic constraint), influence from the L2 on the L1 can be dramatically reduced or eliminated.

2.6 South Tyrol

2.6.1 Introduction

In order to carry out the research for the current dissertation, a specific population of bilinguals with a series of characteristics was desired. Namely, the present study required bilinguals who are: 1) speakers of one Germanic and one Romance language; 2) highly proficient

L2 speakers; 3) capable of using the L2 both in the classroom and in everyday life. These requirements led to the selection of South Tyrol as an ideal testing location. The region known as

South Tyrol (German: Südtirol, Italian: Alto Adige) is located in Northern Italy (see Figure 5) on the border with Austria and Switzerland and is one of the two autonomous provinces that form the region Trentino-Alto Adige. South Tyrol is home to a population of 520,891 inhabitants

(Statistisches Jahrbuch, 2016). Approximately one-fifth of South Tyrol’s residents (106,441) live in the provincial capital Bolzano (Statistisches Jahrbuch, 2016).

Figure 5. Map of Italy with South Tyrol highlighted

2.6.2 History

At the outbreak of the First World War, South Tyrol belonged to the Austro-Hungarian

Empire. During the war, in April 1915, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia signed a secret pact with Italy known as the Treaty of London (Maurer-Lausegger, 2003). In this treaty, Italy was promised South Tyrol in exchange for allying with the British, Russians, and French.

Following the conclusion of the war, South Tyrol was formally annexed to Italy with the signing of the Treaty of St. Germain (Alcock, 2000). Under Mussolini and his Fascist regime, forced

Italianization was introduced to the region and as a result, the German-speaking majority in the

51 region was oppressed. The public use of German was forbidden and South Tyroleans were forced to communicate in Italian (Maruer-Lausegger, 2003). Place names and even surnames of

German-speaking families were Italianized; German-language newspapers were shut down, and use of German in schools was outlawed (Alcock, 2000). In the 1930s Italian speakers from other, poorer, areas of Italy were resettled in South Tyrol in order to boost the industrial labor force and to increase the Italian presence in the region (De Angelis, 2012; Eichinger, 2002). By 1939, L1

Italian speakers formed 25% of the population of South Tyrol (Alcock, 2000).

At the outbreak of the Second World War, Hitler and Mussolini gave L1 German South

Tyroleans the option to stay in their homeland and assimilate to the Italian way of life or to leave and resettle in the Third Reich. This is known as die Option and officially 200,000 South

Tyroleans opted to emigrate to the Third Reich, though in reality only around 75,000 actually left

South Tyrol (Alcock, 2000). Following the conclusion of the Second World War, it was hoped by many in South Tyrol that the region would re-join Austria. This did not happen and instead the De Gasperi – Gruber Accord was negotiated at the Paris Peace Conference of 1946. This agreement granted autonomy to South Tyrol, but due to imprecise wording and misunderstandings regarding the goals of the document, this agreement ultimately failed

(Alcock, 1992). This led to a decade of unrest in the region, most dramatically in the form of terrorist attacks carried out by those who were displeased with the situation of the German- speaking minority in Italy. In 1960 and 1961 Austria brought the matter to the United Nations, which set off a decade of negotiations between Austria and Italy regarding the German-speaking minority (Alcock, 2000). The Paket of 1969 led to the Second Autonomy Statue, which was officially implemented in 1972 and offered a more clearly defined autonomy for South Tyrol,

52 and included increased protections for the German-speakers in the region. Critically, South Tyrol gained more oversight in the areas of language policy and education.

2.6.3 Languages in South Tyrol

There are three official languages in South Tyrol: Italian, German, and Ladin. Ladin, a

Romance language, is spoken by only around four percent of the population and 87% of L1

Ladin speakers live in Gröden in the Garda Valley (Land Südtirol, 2012). Due to its history and geography, South Tyrol remains a majority German-speaking province. According to the 2011 census, 62.34% of the population identifies as L1 German, 23.41% as L1 Italian, 4.07% as L1

Ladin, and 10.18% as speaking another L1 (ASTAT, 2011). This distribution, however, varies by area. Ninety-eight percent of the L1 Italian speakers live in the cities, whereas rural areas are more heavily German speaking (Land Südtirol, 2012; ASTAT, 2011). In the metropolitan district of Bolzano, for example, 73.80% of the population is L1 Italian and just 25.52% is L1 German

(the city of Bolzano proper reports 73.00% as L1 Italian and 26.29% as L1 German). In contrast, in the more rural Vinschgau district in the northwest of South Tyrol just 2.63% of the population identifies as L1 Italian and 97.29% identifies as L1 German (ASTAT, 2011).

The overwhelming majority of L1 German speakers in South Tyrol are also speakers of a dialect of German. This dialect is a southern Bavarian dialect similar to that spoken in Western

Austria, though the varieties spoken in South Tyrol do show signs of influence from Italian due to the language contact situation (Eichinger, 2002). There is no single South Tyrolean dialect, with communities in different areas of South Tyrol speaking slightly different dialects from each other (Alcock, 2000). In contrast to dialects in other areas of the world, the dialect spoken in

South Tyrol is highly valued by its speakers and is therefore not only spoken in a wide variety of domains, but is also passed on to the next generation (Leonardi, 2016). Importantly, the presence

53 of this dialect creates, in addition to the German-Italian dichotomy in the region, a diglossic situation in which South Tyroleans speak their dialect nearly exclusively in everyday oral communication. Standard German is reserved for official public functions, school, and religious ceremonies (Leonardi, 2016; Maurer-Lausegger, 2003).

2.6.4 Bilingualism

The 1972 Paket and Second Autonomy Statue granted equal rights to inhabitants of all three language groups (Italian, German, and Ladin) (Schweigkofler, 2000). Some of these rights include: the right to education in the native language; bilingualism is guaranteed in public offices and services; places (e.g., towns) are entitled to bilingual or trilingual names (e.g., Bozen –

Bolzano, Brixen – Bressanone); and the rule of proportionality, which ensures that public and government roles are filled proportionally according to the language make-up of the province.

Although some children in South Tyrol are raised in dual-language households and are therefore considered balanced bilinguals, this situation is not the norm (Leonardi, 2016). South

Tyroleans who grow up as L1 German speakers tend to remain dominant in the L1 (Dal Negro,

2005; Leonardi, 2016). However, regardless of where one lives in South Tyrol and what native language one speaks, second-language education for both German and Italian is an integral and valued part of the educational system in South Tyrol. Both L1 German and L1 Italian children begin learning the L2 (Italian or German, respectively) at a very early age. Since 2003, South

Tyrolean children have started learning the L2 in the first year of elementary school, around the age of six (see Leonardi, 2016 for a discussion). This L2 language instruction continues until completion of high school around the age of 19 (e.g., Vettori, Wisniewski, & Abel, 2012). A study conducted on the language abilities of both L2 German and L2 Italian learners in South

Tyrolean high schools found that students ranged from the A2 through the C18 levels of mastery on writing and speaking tasks, with L2 Italian speakers outperforming L2 German speakers

(Vettori et al., 2012).

In addition to classroom instruction, L1 German speakers living in urban South Tyrol, where Italian speakers are equal to (e.g., Meran) or outnumber (e.g., Bolzano) them, have plenty of opportunities to speak and comprehend Italian in everyday life. Italian media, such as newspapers and television stations, are widely available, and local movie theaters show a mixture of German and Italian-language films. Stores and local shops tend to cater to either a

German-speaking or an Italian-speaking clientele, so an L1 German speaker who wishes to enter an Italian bakery, for example, must be prepared to speak Italian (Dal Negro, 2005). For L1

German speakers in the cities, knowledge of and readiness to speak Italian is a necessity

(Cavagnoli & Nardin, 1999). This is especially true of younger South Tyroleans, who report having the most contact with the L1 Italian-speaking population in their free time (Cavagnoli &

Nardin, 1999). As the following quotation demonstrates, attitudes towards bilingualism for contemporary L1 German speakers in South Tyrol tend to be overall quite positive:

On the one hand, such speakers of German in South Tyrol take advantage of the rights

gained in the political struggle of the last 50 years. So when they use German, they

choose it as a symbol of a prestigious group within South Tyrol society, and at the same

time profit from the functional value of German within Europe. On the other hand, these

people do not mind using Italian or mixing Italian colloquialisms into their own talk. This

means they symbolise by this type of language behaviour that they have integrated

bilingualism as part of their own identity. This not only enables them to make practical

8 These levels correspond to the Common European Framework of Reference definitions of proficiency. 55

use of their speaking two quite important European languages, but also implies a positive

view of this bilingual identity. So what from a traditional point of view is a strange

combination of language use makes sense on the level of modern social-symbolic

evaluation. Being bilingual and stressing the fact that they want to be locally recognisable

by using regional markers, these people are well prepared for the challenges of

globalisation and they fit well into the context of European communication. (Eichinger,

2002, pp. 142-143)

2.6.5 South Tyrol as a Unique Language Environment

South Tyrol, specifically its capital Bolzano, provides an ideal population for the current study. The unique German-Italian bilingual population speaks one Germanic language and one

Romance language, languages that have produced different results with regard to the gender- congruency effect in experiments with monolinguals. In addition, these two languages have asymmetrical gender systems (i.e., Italian has two genders, German has three), a combination that has been looked at systematically in just one previous study (Klassen, 2016). Furthermore, the L2 Italian is acquired at a relatively young age and classroom instruction lasts until the completion of high school. In addition to learning the language inside the school walls, bilinguals use their L2 in everyday situations outside of the classroom due to the language environment of

Bolzano. This non-classroom use of the L2 means that speakers are more likely to switch back and forth between languages throughout the day, keeping the L2 more active than if it were restricted to classroom use only. The high proficiency attained in the L2 means that this population is likely to have more stable and consistent gender assignment accuracy than other, less-proficient populations (see discussion in Lemhöfer et al, 2008; 2010). Critically, despite achieving high proficiency in their L2 Italian, they remain dominant in their L1 German. Finally,

56 a percentage of L1 German-speaking South Tyroleans choose to study at universities in neighboring Austria, where they communicate predominantly in the L1 German. This provides a natural group of bilinguals with the same background as the South Tyroleans still living in South

Tyrol, but who are living in a different (L1-dominant) language environment. This second population offers an ideal population with which to systematically compare the effect of language environment on the interaction of gender systems.

CHAPTER 3: Experiment 1

3.1 Methods: Experiment 1a

3.1.1 Participants

Three groups of participants were recruited and tested in South Tyrol, Italy and in

Austria. All participants were between 18-40 years old, were native speakers of German, and all considered themselves to be dominant in German. No simultaneous bilinguals of any language combination were included. The first group, known hereafter as South Tyroleans in South Tyrol, was tested in the city of Bolzano in South Tyrol, Italy and spoke Italian as a second language. All participants in this group were raised in South Tyrol in German-speaking households and began learning Italian around six years old. In addition to Italian, all participants in this group reported speaking English as an additional L2 and reported speaking a South Tyrolean dialect in addition to Standard German. A total of 30 participants were tested, with one excluded due to inability to complete the experimental tasks and one excluded due to being a simultaneous German-

Hungarian bilingual, leaving a total of 28 participants (7 male, 21 female). The second group, known hereafter as South Tyroleans in Austria, was tested either in Salzburg or Vienna, Austria, and spoke Italian as a second language. All participants in this group were raised in South Tyrol in German-speaking households, but were living in Austria at the time of testing. Participants in this group began learning Italian around six years old. In addition to Italian, all participants in this group reported speaking English as an additional L2 and reported speaking a South Tyrolean dialect in addition to Standard German. A total of 25 participants were tested (5 male, 20 female). The third group, known hereafter as the Control Group, was tested in Salzburg, Austria and spoke English as a second language. All participants were raised in Austria or Germany in

German-speaking households and began learning English around the age of eight. Twenty-three

58 of 25 participants in this group reported speaking an Austrian or German dialect of German in addition to Standard German. Participants had no knowledge of Italian.9 A total of 25 participants were tested (6 male, 19 female). Overall, 78 participants were included in the analyses for Experiment 1a. All participants provided written consent prior to taking part in the study and participation was voluntary. Participants were paid 7 Euro/hour for their participation and received payment following each of the two experimental sessions.

In addition to the main experimental tasks, participants completed a series of supplementary tasks designed to measure individual variables, such as language proficiency, language background, working memory, and inhibitory control. Results from a selection of these tasks are presented in Table 4 below. A full description of each supplementary task is provided in Section 3.1.3.1. General biographical information was obtained via a Language Background

Questionnaire. There was a statistically significant difference between the ages of the three participant groups as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 75) = 3.75, p = .028, partial η² =

.091). Post-hoc comparisons showed that the South Tyroleans in Austria were significantly younger than the Control Group (p = .010). There was no significant difference in age between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the Control Group (p = .469) or the South Tyroleans in

Austria (p = .051). In addition to a difference in participant age, a one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the ages of first exposure to their respective L2s between the three groups (F(2, 75) = 17.50, p < .001, partial η² = .318). Planned comparisons showed that the Control Group’s age of first exposure to English occurred at a significantly older age than both South Tyrolean groups’ first exposure to Italian (all ps < .001), but that the two

9 Two participants had previously received instruction in Italian, but had not used the language for ten or more years prior to testing and reported very low proficiency in Italian. 59

South Tyrolean groups did not differ from each other in their age of first exposure to Italian (p =

.545).

Three proficiency measures were collected: 1) an Italian cloze test to assess Italian proficiency (completed by only the two South Tyrolean groups); 2) an English proficiency task to assess English proficiency (L3 for the South Tyrolean groups and L2 for the Control group), and; 3) a verbal fluency task to assess L2 proficiency (Italian for the South Tyrolean groups,

English for the Control group) and to ascertain relative language dominance between L1 German and L2 Italian/English. A one-way ANOVA showed no significant difference in performance on the Italian cloze test between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the South Tyroleans in

Austria (F(1, 51) = 0.56, p = .459, partial η² = .011). To analyze the verbal fluency data, a repeated measures ANOVA was run with Language as a within-subjects factor and Group as a between-subjects factor. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of language (F(1, 75) = 241.31, p <

.001, partial η² = .763), with groups naming more words overall in L1 German than in L2

Italian/English. There was a main effect of Group (F(2, 75) = 4.40, p = .016, partial η² = .105), with the Control Group naming more words overall (M = 104.60) than either the South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol (M = 91.88, p = .007) or the South Tyroleans in Austria (M = 93.78, p

= .024). There was also a Language x Group interaction (F(2, 75) = 9.25, p < .001, partial η² =

.198). Follow up one-way ANOVAs treated Language as the dependent variable and Group as the between-subjects variable. The first ANOVA showed that in the L1 German there was a main effect of Group (F(2, 75) = 4.99, p = .009, partial η² = .117). Planned comparisons showed that the South Tyroleans in Austria (p = .016) and the Control Group (p = .005) named significantly more words in the L1 than the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol. There was no significant difference between the South Tyroleans in Austria and the Control Group (p = .665). The second

ANOVA showed that in the L2 there was a main effect of Group (F(2, 75) = 6.11, p = .003, partial η² = .140). Planned comparisons showed that the Control Group named significantly more words than the South Tyroleans in Austria (p = .001). There were no significant differences between the number of words named between the Control Group and the South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol (p = .053) or between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the South Tyroleans in Austria (p = .110).

Finally, two cognitive tests measured participants’ working memory capacity (via the operation span task) and inhibitory control (via the Flanker task). A one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences in performance on the operation span task between the South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol, the South Tyroleans in Austria, and the Control Group (F(2, 75) =

0.98, p = .379, partial η² = .026). A one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences in performance on the Flanker task between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol, the South

Tyroleans in Austria, and the Control Group (F(2, 75) = 0.77, p = .463, partial η² = .020).

Table 4. Biographical information for all three Experiment 1a participant groups

Group South Tyroleans South Tyroleans Control Group

in South Tyrol in Austria

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Age (years) 25.21 (5.03) 22.64 (3.64) 26.16 (5.28)

Italian Cloze Test (%) 61.03 (11.84) 58.22 (15.50) n/a

English Proficiency Test (%) 54.07 (21.28) 60.74 (21.92) 83.53 (16.24)

Age of first exposure to L2 5.88 (1.54) 6.16 (1.43) 8.44 (2.08)

Time in Austria (months) n/a 37.52 (39.24) n/a

Verbal Fluency Score (L1 total) 104.21 (16.04) 116.76 (19.19) 119.04 (20.37)

Verbal Fluency Score (L2 total) 79.54 (17.52) 70.80 (20.86) 90.16 (20.54)

Operation Span Score (total 59.79 (7.07) 59.80 (10.10) 62.76 (8.91) possible: 75)

Flanker Effect Score 47.51 (23.23) 55.83 (30.83) 53.74 (22.18)

Days between Sessions 7.46 (1.55) 8.56 (4.01) 7.56 (1.94)

As part of the Language Background Questionnaire, participants were asked to rate their language abilities on a variety of measures for both L1 German and L2 Italian (or L2 English in the Control Group) on a scale of 1 (least like a native speaker) to 10 (most like a native speaker).

Results for both L1 German and L2 Italian/English are reported in Table 5. There were no statistically significant differences between the L1 German self-ratings of the three groups on any of the variables listed in Table 5, as determined by one-way ANOVAs (all ps > .1). All groups rated their native language ability between 9 and 10 on the 10-point scale, indicating high

62 proficiency in their L1 German. There were statistically significant differences between the L2 self-ratings of the three groups (Italian for the South Tyrolean groups, English for the Control

Group) on the measures of L2 speaking and L2 writing ability as determined by one-way

ANOVAs (speaking: F(2, 75) = 3.30, p = .042, partial η² = .081; writing: F(2, 75) = 3.19, p =

.047, partial η² = .078). Planned comparisons revealed that the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol rated their L2 Italian speaking ability higher than the South Tyroleans in Austria (p = .017). No differences were observed between the Control Group and the two South Tyrolean groups (all ps

> .05). The South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the Control Group both rated their L2 writing ability significantly higher than the South Tyroleans in Austria (all ps < .05). No significant difference was observed between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the Control Group (p =

.748). Beyond these two measures, there were no additional significant differences between groups (all ps > .09).

Table 5. Experiment 1a: Participant self-ratings in L1 German and L2 Italian/English

Group South Tyroleans in South Tyroleans in Control Group

South Tyrol Austria

Language L1 Germ L2 Ital L1 Germ L2 Ital L1 Germ L2 Engl

M M M M M M

(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Speaking 9.79 7.68 9.80 6.64 9.92 7.48

(0.42) (1.56) (0.41) (1.73) (0.28) (1.29)

Reading 10.00 8.57 9.88 7.88 9.92 8.48

(0.00) (1.35) (0.33) (1.59) (0.28) (0.96)

Writing 9.61 7.46 9.80 6.60 9.72 7.60

(0.63) (1.62) (0.50) (1.66) (0.54) (1.26)

Comprehension 9.96 8.75 9.96 8.24 9.96 8.32

(0.19) (1.32) (0.20) (1.76) (0.20) (1.41)

Grammar 9.46 7.14 9.52 6.76 9.64 7.72

(0.74) (1.82) (0.59) (1.74) (0.57) (1.51)

Vocabulary 9.50 6.96 9.68 6.44 9.68 7.44

(0.75) (1.84) (0.63) (2.10) (0.56) (1.29)

Overall 9.68 7.75 9.84 7.08 9.72 7.96

(0.55) (1.51) (0.37) (1.66) (0.61) (1.21)

Participants were asked to self-report their general language use by percentage in the environment in which they were currently living (i.e., in Bolzano for the South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol and in Austria for the South Tyroleans in Austria and the Control Group). Though all participants in the South Tyrolean groups also reported being speakers of a South Tyrolean dialect, and 23 of 25 participants in the Control Group reported speaking a German or Austrian dialect, for the purposes of filling out the Language Background Questionnaire they were all instructed to consider the term “German” to include both the standard version of the language as well as their dialect. Table 6 displays percentages of L1 German use, L2 Italian/L2 English use, and use of languages other than L1 or L2 (“Other”). There was a statistically significant difference between the three groups with regard to L1 German use as determined by a one-way

ANOVA (F(2, 74) = 11.00, p < .001, partial η² = .229). Planned comparisons revealed that the

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol reported using L1 German significantly less than the South

Tyroleans in Austria and the Control Group (all ps < .01). There was no statistically significant difference in reported L1 German use between the South Tyroleans in Austria and the Control

Group (p = .177). There was a statistically significant difference between the three groups with regard to L2 use (Italian for the South Tyrolean groups, English for the Control Group) as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 74) = 18.89, p < .001, partial η² = .338). Planned comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between all three groups with respect to

L2 use. The South Tyroleans in South Tyrol reported significantly more use of L2 Italian than the South Tyroleans in Austria (p < .001) and of L2 English in the Control Group (p = .013). The

Control Group reported using L2 English significantly more than the South Tyroleans in Austria reported using L2 Italian (p = .001). Finally, there was a statistically significant difference between the three groups with regard to use of additional languages (“Other”) as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 74) = 4.47, p = .015, partial η² = .108). Planned comparisons revealed that the Control Group reported using additional languages significantly less than the two South

Tyrolean groups (all ps < .05). There was no significant difference in use of additional languages reported between the two South Tyrolean groups (p = .407). These results verify that the South

Tyrolean groups were indeed distinct with regard to language use, with the South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol speaking more L2 Italian and less L1 German compared to the South Tyroleans in

Austria.

Table 6. Experiment 1a: Reported language use in percentages

South Tyroleans in South Tyroleans in Control Group

South Tyrol10 Austria

M SD M SD M SD

L1 German 62.22 15.77 83.20 15.20 76.80 18.65

L2 Italian/English 30.56 12.74 7.60 8.31 21.00 17.80

Other 7.22 8.59 9.20 10.77 2.20 5.42

3.1.2 Materials

Seventy-two experimental items, 24 filler items, and six practice items were included in the study for a total of 102 items (see Appendix A for a full list of stimuli). The experimental items were evenly divided into one of three conditions: Gender-Congruent (n = 24), Gender-

Incongruent (n = 24), and Neuter-Incongruent (n = 24). The three conditions will be referred to henceforth as Congruent, Incongruent, and Neuter. Congruent items were images whose translations in German and Italian are either both feminine or both masculine; in other words,

10 One participant was excluded from analysis due to reporting language usage patterns totaling greater than 100%. So these values are based on the remaining 27 participants in this group. 66 these items’ genders are congruent between languages, like examples (1a) and (1b). Incongruent items were images whose translations in German and Italian are feminine in one language and masculine in the other; in other words, these items’ genders are incongruent between languages, like examples (1c) and (1d). Neuter items were images whose translations in German are neuter and in Italian are feminine or masculine, like examples (1e) and (1f).

(1a) Hund-MASC/cane-MASC “dog” (gender-congruent)

(1b) Flasche-FEM/bottiglia-FEM “bottle” (gender-congruent)

(1c) Brücke-FEM/ponte-MASC “bridge” (gender-incongruent)

(1d) Mond-MASC/luna-FEM “moon” (gender-incongruent)

(1e) Hemd-NEUT/camicia-FEM “shirt” (neuter-incongruent)

(1f) Brot-NEUT/pane-MASC “bread” (neuter-incongruent)

Filler items were included in order to keep the overall balance of congruent and incongruent items even across the task as a whole (congruent: n = 48; incongruent: n = 48). Filler items were all gender congruent and were either feminine (like 2a and 2b) or masculine (like 2c and 2d) in both German and Italian. Items like (2b) and (2d) were included in order to provide a more naturalistic distribution of items by including words with a vocalic onset in Italian.

(2a) Stadt-FEM/città-FEM “city” (feminine)

(2b) Gans-FEM/oca-FEM “goose” (feminine-vowel)

(2c) Wolf-MASC/lupo-MASC “wolf” (masculine)

(2d) Baum-MASC/albero-MASC “ tree” (masculine-vowel)

As items were chosen for inclusion in a picture naming task, only concrete, imageable nouns were used. To avoid potential confounds with regard to naming times, direct cognates between German and Italian (e.g., Tasse/tazza, “cup”) were avoided, though some German items

67 had less-frequent Italian translations that were cognates or near cognates (e.g., Auto/macchina or automobile, “car”). In such cases, care was taken to: a) ensure that the secondary translation was indeed less frequent than the target translation (e.g., automobile was less frequent than macchina) and that at least 60% of participants in the norming studies named the target item and not the secondary translation. Additionally, items containing natural gender (e.g., humans, animals with distinct and commonly used female and male forms) and nouns assigned different genders in Standard German and in Austria or South Tyrolean dialects were avoided (e.g., Teller,

“plate,” is masculine in Standard German, but neuter in a variety of dialects). Finally, nouns with a vocalic onset in Italian were excluded from the experimental items (but were included as filler items). This was done because such words elide with respect to the definite article to l’ regardless of gender, making them ambiguous for gender when named with the definite article.

To depict each potential item, black-and-white line drawing images were selected, primarily from the International Picture Naming Project (Szekeley et al., 2004). Images were then normed on participants from the target population (L1 German-L2 Italian speakers from

South Tyrol) via a pilot study conducted in Bolzano (n = 13) and online surveys (n = 37). None of the participants in this pilot study participated in the main experiments. Each image was normed to ensure naming agreement in both L1 German and L2 Italian with regard to both the noun and its gender. To be included in the study, images had to achieve 75% naming agreement or above in L1 German and 60% naming agreement or above in L2 Italian.

Prior to inclusion in the current study, frequency information was obtained for each of the potential experimental items. Frequency in German was obtained through the University of

Potsdam DLEX database (Heister, Würzner, Bubenzer, Pohl, Hanneforth, Geyken, & Kliegl,

2011) and frequency in Italian was found in CoLFIS (Bertinetto, Burani, Laudanna, Marconi,

Ratti, Rolando, & Thornton, 2005). Potential items were then coded for animacy, frequency in both German and Italian, length in both German and Italian, and noun transparency in Italian.

This final measure was coded to control for noun endings in Italian, as Italian is a language with an overall transparent gender system. The majority (92.1%) of Italian nouns end with –o, or –a, like (3a) and (3b), and are masculine or feminine, respectively, or end with –e and can be either masculine, like (3c), or feminine, like (3d) (Chini, 1998). In other words, the –e ending is ambiguous with regard to the gender of the noun. Conditions were therefore matched to ensure that no single condition had more words containing the ambiguous ending –e, which could be potentially more difficult for L2 speakers to learn. Neither nouns that ended in –o or –a that did not represent their canonical genders respectively (i.e., words ending in –o, yet are feminine; words ending in –a, yet are masculine) nor nouns that had endings other than –o, -a, or –e were included in the stimuli.

(3a) libro-MASC “book”

(3b) mela-FEM “apple”

(3c) fiume-MASC “river”

(3d) chiave-FEM “key”

Experimental items were matched across conditions on the following measures, displayed below in Table 7. There were no statistically significant differences between the three experimental conditions with regard to the following measures as determined by one-way

ANOVAs (length in German: F(2, 69) = 1.49, p = .233; length in Italian: F(2, 69) = 0.25, p =

.781; frequency in German: F(2, 69) = 1.58, p = .213; frequency in Italian: F(2, 69) = 2.08, p =

.133; norming naming agreement in German: F(2, 69) = 0.67, p = .513; norming naming agreement in Italian: F(2, 69) = 1.07, p = .349). Additionally, whether the image depicted an

69 animate (here: animals) or inanimate object was balanced across conditions so that no condition had more animate objects than another. Finally, noun transparency in Italian was balanced across conditions so that no condition had more nouns with the gender-ambiguous –e ending than another.

Table 7. Measures matched between conditions with means and standard deviations

Congruent Incongruent Neuter

Measures M SD M SD M SD

Length-German 5.62 1.74 6.17 2.16 5.21 1.86

Length-Italian 6.54 1.74 6.25 1.73 6.58 1.89

Frequency-German 2769.96 4471.86 2436.58 3150.03 4551.33 5378.81

Frequency-Italian 92.46 132.04 133.79 158.00 275.25 525.37

Norming Agreement- 97.83 4.14 96.46 6.37 95.83 7.35

German

Norming Agreement- 92.79 10.24 89.21 12.97 87.71 13.65

Italian

3.1.3 Procedure

As Table 8 shows, testing took place over two sessions, approximately one week apart. In

Session 1, which lasted approximately 90 minutes, all tasks were completed in L1 German. In

Session 2, which lasted approximately 60 minutes, most tasks were completed in the L2 Italian for the experimental groups and in L2 English for the Control Group. See Table 4 for the mean number of days between sessions by group. Importantly, there was no statistically significant 70 difference between the three groups with regard to amount of time between sessions as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 75) = 1.31, p = .277, partial η² = .034).

Table 8. Complete list of tasks completed by Experiment 1a participants in each experimental session

Session 1 Session 2

All 3 Groups South Tyroleans in South Tyrol Control Group

South Tyroleans in Austria

L1 German L2 Italian L2 English

Consent Italian Cloze Test English Proficiency Test

Bare Noun Naming Determiner+Noun Naming Determiner+Noun Naming

Determiner+Noun Naming Bare Noun Naming Bare Noun Naming

Verbal Fluency Verbal Fluency Verbal Fluency

Language Background Determiner+Noun Naming Determiner+Noun Naming

Questionnaire (L1 German) (L1 German)

Flanker Task English Proficiency Test Debriefing

Automated Operation Span Debriefing

Participants began Session 1 by providing written consent. They then completed two versions of the main picture naming tasks in L1 German: once naming with just the noun (Bare

Noun version) and once naming with the definite article and the noun (Determiner+Noun version). Task order was counterbalanced so that half of participants completed the Bare Noun version of the task first and the Determiner+Noun version second and the other half of

71 participants completed the tasks in reverse order.11 Next, participants completed a Verbal

Fluency task in L1 German. Following this, participants filled out an extensive Language

Background Questionnaire. Finally, two cognitive tasks were completed: a Flanker task to measure inhibitory control (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974) and an Automated Operation Span task to measure working memory (Unsworth, Heitz, Schrock, & Engle, 2005). See Section 3.1.3.1 for a detailed description of each of the supplementary tasks.

Session 2 took place approximately one week after Session 1. Participants in the two experimental groups (i.e., South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and South Tyroleans in Austria) first completed a proficiency test in their L2 Italian and participants in the Control Group completed a proficiency test in their L2 English. This task was administered prior to the L2 naming tasks to boost activation of the L2 and to ease participants into “L2 mode.” Following the written tests, participants completed the same two naming tasks from Session 1, but did so this time in L2

Italian or L2 English. Again, half of participants completed the Determiner+Noun version first and half completed the Bare Noun version first. Next they completed the Verbal Fluency task in their L2 Italian or L2 English, which was identical to the version in Session 1 except that the task was presented and completed in the L2 instead of the L1. Participants then completed the fifth and final picture naming task, the Determiner+Noun Naming, this time again in the L1 German.

Following this, the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the South Tyroleans in Austria completed an English proficiency task, as all participants noted knowledge of English on their

Language Background Questionnaires. Finally, all groups completed a short debriefing form.

11 Because the order of tasks was counterbalanced, analyses were carried out to ensure that none of the effects in the main analyses were driven by the order in which participants completed the tasks. A series of 3 x 3 x 2 repeated measures ANOVAs with Task Order entered as a between-subjects variable showed that while the overall effect of Task Order was significant, with all groups speeding up on the second task (all ps < .01), the pattern of results did not suggest that Task Order contributed to the primary effects found in the data and reported here. They will therefore not be considered further. 72

The five picture naming experiments were programmed and presented using E-Prime 2.0

(Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002). Participants were tested individually in a quiet room and were seated in front of a laptop computer. Naming responses were recorded with a digital recorder for later transcription and coding and naming latencies were recorded by a microphone attached to a button box. Naming latencies were measured from the onset of the image until a response was given. Participants were provided written instructions on the screen in the language of the task (L1 German during Session 1, L2 Italian/English during Session 2) and were asked to name images using either the noun only (Bare Noun Naming) or the definite article and the noun

(Determiner+Noun Naming). Following the instructions, each participant received six practice trials to familiarize themselves with the procedure and timing of the experiment. Prior to beginning the experiment proper, participants were given the opportunity to ask any remaining questions they had. Each trial consisted of an initial fixation point for 500ms followed by the image centered on the screen for a maximum of 4000ms, or until a response was registered. Once a response was recorded or the 4000ms interval was exceeded, the image disappeared and an inter-stimulus interval (blank screen) appeared for 750ms prior to the appearance of the next trial’s fixation point.

3.1.3.1 Supplementary Tasks

3.1.3.1.1 Language Background Questionnaire

The Language Background Questionnaire (Appendix C) was completed in participants’

L1 German and contained 34 questions. Participants answered biographical questions (e.g., age, location of residence), general language background questions (e.g., languages known, age of acquisition for each known language, how each language was acquired), language usage patterns

(e.g., what percentage of the time each language is used, how much time spent abroad), and self-

73 ratings of language proficiency in the L1 German and in all other known languages. Finally, a series of questions asked participants to rate their language switching tendencies (adapted from

Byers-Heinlein, 2013). This task was completed using the computer. Results are reported in

Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6.

3.1.3.1.2 Italian Cloze Test

To assess participants’ proficiency in Italian, a written cloze test was completed in the L2

Italian by the two experimental groups. This task is identical to the task used in Bianchi (2012; used with permission from Giulia Bianchi) with highly proficient German-Italian bilinguals. This task consisted of a three-paragraph article with 45 blanks spread intermittently throughout the paragraph. Participants were instructed to fill in each blank with either a content or a function word. Results are reported in Table 4 and are given in overall percentage of questions answered correctly.

3.1.3.1.3 English Proficiency Test

To assess the Control Group’s proficiency in L2 English and the proficiency of the two experimental groups in their additional L2 English (as all participants in these groups also reported knowledge of English), an English proficiency test was administered. The test items were taken from the MELICET-GCVR test of English proficiency (used with permission from

Geraldine Blattner; Blattner, 2007). This test consisted of 43 multiple choice questions and was completed in written form. Results are reported in Table 4 and are given in overall percentage of questions answered correctly.

3.1.3.1.4 Verbal Fluency Task

To provide an additional measure of language proficiency and to measure dominance between the L1 German and the L2 Italian (in the South Tyrolean groups) or L2 English (in the

Control Group), an identical version of the verbal fluency task was administered in both languages. Participants received six categories (animals, clothing, kitchen appliances, classroom objects, fruits and vegetables, and words beginning with the letter “M”) and, following the presentation of each category on the screen, participants heard an auditory tone, after which they had 60 seconds to say as many words belonging to this category as possible before a final tone sounded and the word STOP appeared on the screen. A digital recorder recorded all responses for transcription later by the researcher.

3.1.3.1.5 Automated Operation Span Task

To ensure that groups did not differ with regard to working memory capacity, an

Automated Operation Span task was administered to all participants (Redick, Broadway, Meier,

Kuriakose, Unsworth, Kane, & Engle, 2012; Unsworth et al., 2005). Working memory has been shown to impact L1 and L2 processing (e.g., Linck, Osthus, Koeth, & Bunting, 2014; see Juffs &

Harrington, 2011 for review). In this task participants solved simple mathematical equations while simultaneously remembering and later identifying a series of letters that appeared between each equation. Each participant’s score was automatically calculated and was based on the total number of letters recalled in the correct position, regardless of whether the complete series was recalled in its entirety (“OspanTotal”). This more liberal measure is argued to have higher internal consistency as compared to the absolute score (“OspanScore”), which only grants a point for letters recalled in the correct position when the complete series was recalled in its entirety

(Redick et al., 2012). Mean scores from the Automated Operation Span task (out of a possible 75

75 points) by group are given in Table 4. There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(2, 75) = 0.98, p = .379, partial η² =

.026).

3.1.3.1.6 Flanker Task

This task provides a measure of participants’ inhibitory control (Eriksen & Eriksen,

1974), and has been shown to correlate with reduced cross-language competition (Linck,

Schwieter, & Sunderman, 2012). The Flanker task was completed using a computer and a button box to record responses. Participants were instructed to press the button corresponding to the direction of the red arrows on the screen, while ignoring distracting information. Each participant’s “Flanker effect score” reflects the mean response time for incongruent trials in the mixed congruent/incongruent block minus the congruent trials in the mixed congruent/incongruent block. Lower effects are considered to reflect better inhibitory control.

Results from this task are reported in Table 4.

3.2 Results: Experiment 1a

3.2.1 Data Analysis

For the five picture naming tasks, recorded responses were transcribed and coded by the researcher. Items were eliminated from analysis on a task-by-task basis due to: a) the participant providing a non-target word or gender (when required) on the current task; b) the participant providing a non-target word or gender in the other language (i.e., if the participant used a non- target word, der Mond (“the moon”) in the Determiner+Noun task in L1 German, this item was excluded from analysis on the Bare Noun task in L2 Italian even if they used the expected target word, sole (“sun”); c) technical issues (e.g., having to repeat the word or the voicekey failing to

76 register a response); or d) responses included a sound before the word (e.g., a cough, disfluencies, the onset of a non-target word). Table 9 provides the percentages for the amount of data eliminated due to these factors, indicated on the table with “Acc,” from each task for each group. Following this initial trimming procedure, additional data were trimmed based on naming, or reaction times (RTs). Items were eliminated when: a) the response was registered faster than

200 milliseconds or slower than 3000 milliseconds; or b) the response was faster/slower than 2.5 standard deviations from each individual participant’s mean response time. The amount of data from each task eliminated due to this additional trim is also given in Table 9 for each group and is indicated on the table with “RT.”

Table 9. Data eliminated from each task by group (percentage of items removed from total number of items possible)

% of data eliminated

South Tyroleans South Tyroleans Control Group

in South Tyrol in Austria

Language Task Acc RT Acc RT Acc RT

L1 German Bare Noun 22.77 2.76 27.78 2.08 17.17 2.08

Determiner+Noun 22.82 3.15 27.22 2.60 16.56 3.26

Session 1

Determiner+Noun 19.12 2.97 24.85 3.18 14.17 3.11

Session 2

L2 Italian Bare Noun 24.45 4.46 33.44 4.76 17.88 3.88

Determiner+Noun 21.78 4.82 27.61 3.79 16.22 3.58

Results will be reported for L1 German naming tasks first (Bare Noun task,

Determiner+Noun task, Determiner+Noun task completed during Session 2), followed by results for naming in L2 Italian (Bare Noun task, Determiner+Noun task). For each task, overall accuracy will be reported first followed by naming time data. Descriptions of the analyses used for both accuracy and naming times for all tasks are outlined below.

Overall accuracy shows how well participants were able to name images during the online task by providing the target word and its correct gender (when required by the task), regardless of disfluencies, having to name the image twice, voicekey failures, or having named the target word correctly in the alternate language. For each task in the L1 German, a 3 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed using accuracy as the dependent variable to test for differences between participant groups and experimental conditions. In all of the analyses, both participants (F1) and items (F2) were considered as random factors. In the by-participant analyses, Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a within-subjects variable and Group (South Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria vs. Control

Group) was entered as a between-subjects variable. In the by-item analyses, Group (South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria vs. Control Group) was entered as a within-subjects variable and Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a between-subjects variable. For each task in the L2 Italian, which did not include the Control

Group, a 3 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed using accuracy as the dependent variable to test for differences between participant groups and experimental conditions. In all of the analyses, both participants (F1) and items (F2) were considered as random factors. In the by- participant analyses, Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a within- subjects variable and Group (South Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria)

78 was entered as a between-subjects variable. In the by-item analyses, Group (South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria) was entered as a within-subjects variable and

Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a between-subjects variable. In the by-participant analyses, the statistics are based on the percentage of accurate responses by

Condition, calculated by dividing the number of items named correctly by each participant by a total of 24 items per Condition. In the by-item analyses, the statistics are based on the percentage of accurate responses by Group, calculated by dividing the number of participants who named a particular item correctly by the total number of participants per Group.

Naming times for each of the tasks in Experiment 1a were analyzed in the following manner. 3 x 3 ANOVAs were conducted for all five tasks using naming times (in milliseconds) as the dependent variable to test for differences between participant groups and experimental conditions. In all of the analyses, both participants (F1) and items (F2) were considered as random factors. In the by-participant analyses, Group (L1 German tasks: South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria vs. Control Group; L2 Italian tasks: South Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria) was entered as a between-subjects variable, and

Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a within-subjects variable. In the by-item analyses, Group (South Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria vs.

Control Group) was entered as a within-subjects variable and Condition (Congruent vs.

Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a between-subjects variable.

Finally, in order to ensure that the gender (masculine vs. feminine) of the targets in L2

Italian was not driving the results in the L1 German or L2 Italian naming times and to ensure that, especially in the Neuter condition (i.e., where the gender is neuter in German and masculine

79 or feminine in Italian), participants were not employing a L2 default-gender12 strategy that influenced results from the main analyses, a series of 3 x 2 x 3 repeated measures ANOVAs with

L2 Gender entered as an additional within-subjects variable were conducted on all Experiment 1 tasks. Results showed no significant Condition x L2 Gender interactions, indicating that the L2 gender of the images to be named was not driving the results. L2 Gender will therefore not be considered any further.

3.2.2 Predictions

If speakers experience cross-language interaction at the grammatical level during language production in any of the five tasks in the L1 German or in the L2 Italian, we should find either a gender-congruency effect or a neuter effect. Such effects would appear as a main effect of Condition, with significant differences in naming times between Congruent and

Incongruent images in the case of the gender-congruency effect and significant differences in naming times between Neuter and Congruent and/or Incongruent images in the case of the neuter effect. The presence of this effects indicates that gender systems are interacting with each other during language processing and the absence of this effect indicates that gender systems are not interacting with each other during language processing. If the amount of interaction between gender systems is modulated by language environment (bilingual vs. L1 dominant), we expect to find a Group x Condition interaction showing that the gender-congruency effect is present in only one of the two South Tyrolean groups. Finally, if gender effects are found in both Bare

Noun and Determiner+Noun naming tasks, this is evidence that gender is always accessed during

12 The masculine is considered the default gender in Italian for both L1 and L2 speakers (Oliphant, 1998; Riente, 2003). If participants were using a default gender strategy and assigning masculine more often and more quickly to nouns, we would see that across all tasks and conditions the masculine nouns in Italian are named faster. This was not the case. 80 production, whereas if gender effects are found only in the Determiner+Noun condition, this is evidence that gender only accessed when explicitly required by the context.

3.2.3 Results: L1 German

Accuracy on the Bare Noun Naming task in L1 German are given in Table 10. Mean scores and standard deviations are given based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no significant effects or interaction (Condition: F1(2, 150) = 0.50, p1 = .608, partial η² = .007; F2(2, 69) = 0.07, p2 = .935, partial η² = .002; Group: F1(2, 75) = 0.45, p1 = .637, partial η² = .012; F2(2, 138) =

1.34, p2 = .266, partial η² = .019; Condition x Group: F1(4, 150) = 0.65, p1 = .626, partial η² =

.017; F2(4, 138) = 0.76, p2 = .555, partial η² = .021).

Table 10. Accuracy on Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 95.98 4.46 94.94 6.93 96.43 5.64 95.78 4.40 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 95.50 6.36 95.50 5.37 94.83 4.21 95.28 3.99 in Austria

Control Group 97.00 2.83 96.17 4.15 95.67 3.70 96.28 2.33

Total by Condition 96.15 4.74 95.51 5.61 95.67 4.63

Table 11. Naming times by group for Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 821 109 828 104 801 121 817 108 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 770 119 773 120 739 94 761 106 in Austria

Control Group 780 121 796 123 783 117 787 116

Total by Condition 792 117 801 116 775 113

Naming time data for the Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) are given in Table 11.

The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Group in the by-item analysis that was not significant in the by-participant analysis (F1(2, 75) = 1.70, p1 = .191, partial η² = .043; F2(2, 138) = 51.42, p2 <

.001, partial η² = .427). Planned comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between all three groups in the by-item analyses (all p1s > .070; all p2s < .001). The South

Tyroleans in Austria had the fastest overall naming times followed by the Control Group, followed by the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol. There was a main effect of Condition that was significant in the by-participant analysis that was not significant in the by-item analysis (F1(2,

150) = 8.74, p1 < .001, partial η² = .104; F2(2, 69) = 0.61, p2 = .547, partial η² = .017). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Neuter condition were named faster than images in the

Congruent (p1 = .008; p2 = .544) and Incongruent (p1 < .001; p2 = .275) conditions in the by- participant analyses but that there was no statistically significant difference in naming times between the Congruent and Incongruent conditions (p1 = .138; p2 = .625). Finally, there was no

82 significant Condition x Group interaction (F1(4, 150) = 1.41, p1 = .234, partial η² = .036; F2(4,

138) = 1.89, p2 = .116, partial η² = .052).

Accuracy on the Determiner+Noun Naming task in L1 German are given in Table 12.

Mean scores and standard deviations are based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no significant effects or interaction (Condition: F1(2, 150) = 2.97, p1 = .054, partial η² = .038; F2(2, 69) = 0.36, p2 = .699, partial η² = .010; Group: F1(2, 75) = 0.11, p1 = .900, partial η² = .003; F2(2, 138) =

0.31, p2 = .731, partial η² = .005; Condition x Group: F1(4, 150) = 1.57, p1 = .186, partial η² =

.040; F2(4, 138) = 1.75, p2 = .142, partial η² = .048).

Table 12. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German), including naming the target word with its correct gender, in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 94.79 5.51 93.60 7.48 95.83 4.39 94.74 4.70 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 94.67 5.96 93.83 5.78 95.83 4.34 94.78 4.27 in Austria

Control Group 97.00 3.30 94.33 6.12 94.33 5.36 95.22 3.31

Total by Condition 95.46 5.12 93.91 6.47 95.35 4.70

Table 13. Naming times by group for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 817 134 827 133 761 96 802 115 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 739 117 754 108 699 107 731 105 in Austria

Control Group 781 141 782 129 742 136 768 132

Total by Condition 780 133 789 126 735 115

Naming time data for the Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German) are given in Table 13.

The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Group in the by-item analysis that was not significant in the by-participant analysis (F1(2, 75) = 2.40, p1 = .097, partial η² = .06; F2(2, 138) = 89.83, p2 <

.001, partial η² = .566). Planned comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between all three groups in the by-item analyses. The South Tyroleans in Austria had faster overall naming times than the Control Group (p1 = .263; p2 < .001), or the South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol (p1 = .031; p2 < .001). The Control Group had faster naming times than the South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol (p1 = .305; p2 < .001). There was a main effect of Condition in the by- participant analysis that was not significant in the by-item analysis (F1(2, 150) = 34.54, p1 <

.001, partial η² = .315; F2(2, 69) = 2.94, p2 = .060, partial η² = .078). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Neuter condition were named faster than images in the Congruent (p1

< .001; p2 = .101) and Incongruent (p1 < .001; p2 = .021) conditions in the by-participant

84 analyses. There was no statistically significant difference in naming times between items in the

Congruent and Incongruent conditions (p1 = .186; p2 = .490). Finally, there was no significant

Condition x Group interaction (F1(4, 150) = 0.72, p1 = .579, partial η² = .019; F2(4, 138) = 1.52, p2 = .2, partial η² = .042).

Accuracy on the Determiner+Noun Naming task in L1 German, completed during

Session 2 following naming in L2 Italian, is given in Table 14. Mean scores and standard deviations are based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e.,

Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no significant effects or interaction

(Condition: F1(2, 146) = 0.65, p1 = .524, partial η² = .009; F2(2, 69) = 0.08, p2 = .921, partial η² =

.002; Group: F1(2, 73) = 0.03, p1 = .966, partial η² = .001; F2(2, 138) = 0.08, p2 = .928, partial η²

= .001; Condition x Group: F1(4, 146) = 0.67, p1 = .612, partial η² = .018; F2(4, 138) = 0.80, p2 =

.529, partial η² = .023).

Table 14. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German, Session 2), including naming the target word with its correct gender, in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 96.47 4.36 95.67 3.82 95.99 4.78 96.05 2.98 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 95.83 6.13 96.50 3.33 96.00 3.89 96.11 3.21 in Austria

Control Group 97.00 4.58 95.17 5.06 96.00 3.59 95.89 3.09

Total by Condition 96.44 5.03 95.78 4.11 95.83 4.08

Table 15. Naming times by group for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German, Session 2) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 872 149 900 162 794 142 855 146 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 894 158 914 166 833 146 880 149 in Austria

Control Group 833 122 856 139 781 111 823 118

Total by Condition 866 144 890 156 802 134

Naming time data for the Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German), which was completed in Session 2 following naming in L2 Italian (for both South Tyrolean groups) or L2

English (for the Control Group), are given in Table 15. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of

Group in the by-item analysis, that was not significant in the by-participant analysis (F1(2, 73) =

1.07, p1 = .348, partial η² = .029; F2(2, 138) = 12.97, p2 < .001, partial η² = .158). Planned comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between all three groups in the by-item analyses (all p1s > .1; all p2s < .03). The Control Group had the fastest overall naming times, followed by the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol, followed by the South Tyroleans in Austria.

There was a main effect of Condition (F1(2, 146) = 56.76, p1 < .001, partial η² = .437; F2(2, 69)

= 5.59, p2 = .006, partial η² = .139). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Neuter condition were named faster than images in the Congruent (p1 < .001; p2 = .036) and Incongruent

(p1 < .001; p2 = .002) conditions. Images in the Congruent condition were named significantly faster than those in the Incongruent condition (p1 = .008; p2 = .250) in the by-participant analysis.

Finally, there was no significant Condition x Group interaction (F1(4, 146) = 0.71, p1 = .589, partial η² = .019; F2(4, 138) = 1.43, p2 = .228, partial η² = .04).

3.2.4 Results: L2 Italian

Moving now to the L2 Italian data, accuracy on the Bare Noun Naming task in L2 Italian is given in Table 16. Mean scores and standard deviations based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no main effect of Condition (F1(2, 102) = 0.51, p1 = .604, partial η² = .010; F2(2, 69) = 0.04, p2 =

.965, partial η² = .001). There was a main effect of Group (F1(1, 51) = 6.86, p1 = .012, partial η²

= .118; F2(1, 69) = 50.37, p2 < .001, partial η² = .422), because the South Tyroleans in South

Tyrol were more accurate overall than the South Tyroleans in Austria. Finally, there was no significant Condition x Group interaction (F1(2, 102) = 1.67, p1 = .193, partial η² = .032; F2(2,

69) = 1.20, p2 = .307, partial η² = .034).

Table 16. Accuracy on Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 85.57 11.92 85.57 10.79 84.38 10.43 85.17 9.71 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 76.67 13.23 74.50 18.17 78.00 14.61 76.39 14.47 in Austria

Total by Condition 81.37 13.22 80.35 15.62 81.37 12.86

Table 17. Naming times by group for Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 1072 183 1073 179 1037 165 1061 165 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 1066 251 1063 210 1065 263 1065 233 in Austria

Total by Condition 1069 216 1068 193 1050 215

Naming time data for the Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) are given in Table 17.

The ANOVA revealed no main effect of Group (F1(1, 51) = 0.01, p1 = .939, partial η² = .000;

F2(1, 69) = 1.49, p2 = .227, partial η² = .021). There was no main effect of Condition (F1(2, 102)

= 0.89, p1 = .414, partial η² = .017; F2(2, 69) = 0.62, p2 = .540, partial η² = .018). Finally, there was no significant Condition x Group interaction (F1(2, 102) = 0.98, p1 = .379, partial η² = .019;

F2(2, 69) = 0.46, p2 = .633, partial η² = .013).

Accuracy on the Determiner+Noun Naming task in L2 Italian is given in Table 18. Mean scores and standard deviations are given based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no main effect of Condition (F1(2, 102) = 0.75, p1 = .475, partial η² = .014; F2(2, 69) = 0.07, p2 = .935, partial η²

= .002). There was a main effect of Group in the by-item analysis that was not significant in the by-participant analysis (F1(1, 51) = 3.47, p1 = .068, partial η² = .064; F2(1, 69) = 34.86, p2 <

.001, partial η² = .336), because the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol were more accurate overall than the South Tyroleans in Austria. Finally, there was no significant Condition x Group

88 interaction (F1(2, 102) = 0.06, p1 = .944, partial η² = .001; F2(2, 69) = 0.07, p2 = .936, partial η² =

.002).

Table 18. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian), including naming the target word with its correct gender, in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 84.38 12.40 83.04 13.12 83.33 12.00 83.58 16.06 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 78.17 15.70 76.00 16.19 77.17 14.49 77.11 17.99 in Austria

Total by Condition 81.45 14.26 79.72 14.93 80.42 13.47

Table 19. Naming times by group for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans in 1085 234 1124 272 1111 258 1107 242

South Tyrol

South Tyroleans in 1092 220 1182 242 1115 242 1130 225

Austria

Total by Condition 1088 225 1151 257 1113 248

Naming time data for the Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) are given in Table

19. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Group in the by-item analysis that was not significant in the by-participant analysis (F1(1, 51) = 0.13, p1 = .720, partial η² = .003; F2(1, 69) = 5.02, p2 =

.028, partial η² = .068), because the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol named images significantly faster than the South Tyroleans in Austria. There was a main effect of Condition in the by- participant analysis that was not significant in the by-item analysis (F1(2, 102) = 6.74, p1 = .002, partial η² = .117; F2(2, 69) = 2.22, p2 = .116, partial η² = .061). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Neuter condition were named significantly faster than images in the

Incongruent condition (p1 = .025; p2 = .133) in the by-participant analysis. Images in the

Congruent condition were named significantly faster than those in the Incongruent condition (p1

= .002; p2 = .047). There was no statistically significant difference in naming times between images in the Congruent and Neuter conditions (p1 = .127; p2 = .617). Finally, there was no significant Condition x Group interaction (F1(2, 102) = 1.50, p1 = .228, partial η² = .029; F2(2,

69) = 2.99, p2 = .057, partial η² = .08).

3.2.5 Summary of Experiment 1a Results

The first finding to emerge from the Experiment 1a data is that in all three L1 German tasks, a main effect of Group was present; overall naming times differed between all three groups. Table 20 shows performance of the two South Tyrolean groups by task (Control Group is not included here) in the three L1 German tasks and indicates which group was faster overall each time. Recall that groups were well matched with regard to accuracy, working memory, self- ratings in L1 and L2, and age of acquisition of Italian. The main difference between these two groups was the language environment and, in turn, participants’ language use patterns: the South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol were tested in a bilingual environment where they spoke less L1

German and more L2 Italian compared to the South Tyroleans in Austria, who were tested in the

L1 German environment. In the two L1 German tasks completed during Session 1, the South

Tyroleans in Austria (those living in the L1 German environment) were faster overall than the

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol (those living in the bilingual environment). In the L1 German naming task in Session 2, this pattern is reversed. When groups named in L1 German immediately following completion of four tasks in L2 Italian, the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol were faster than the South Tyroleans in Austria.

In the L2 Italian tasks, also shown in Table 20, overall naming times differed between groups only on the Determiner+Noun Naming task. Here, the South Tyroleans living in South

Tyrol were faster overall than the South Tyroleans in Austria.

Table 20. Overall naming times by group in Experiment 1a

Language Task Naming Times

L1 German Bare Noun South Tyroleans in Austria < South Tyroleans in South Tyrol

Det+Noun South Tyroleans in Austria < South Tyroleans in South Tyrol

Det+Noun South Tyroleans in South Tyrol < South Tyroleans in Austria

Session 2

L2 Italian Bare Noun No difference between groups

Det+Noun South Tyroleans in South Tyrol < South Tyroleans in Austria

Moving now to the results based on Condition, Table 21 provides a summary of results for the three tasks completed in L1 German (the Bare Noun, Determiner+Noun, and

Determiner+Noun (Session 2) naming tasks). In the table, two effects are mentioned: the

“gender-congruency effect” and the “neuter effect.” The gender-congruency effect is present whenever significant differences in naming times are observed between the Congruent and

Incongruent conditions. The neuter effect is present whenever significant differences in naming times are observed between the Neuter condition and the Congruent and/or Incongruent conditions. In the L1 German results we see the presence of the neuter effect in all three tasks, showing that images in the Neuter condition are named significantly faster than those in the

Congruent and Incongruent conditions. The gender-congruency effect in L1 German appears only in the Determiner+Noun task when this task was completed immediately following a series of tasks in the L2 Italian (during Session 2). However, as there were no significant Condition x

Group interactions on any of the three L1 German tasks, all observed effects are also present in the Control Group. As the Control Group has no knowledge of Italian, this suggests that these effects are being driven by something other than influence from the L2 Italian gender system.

Table 21. Summary of results for all L1 German tasks in Experiment 1a

Task Gender-Congruency Effect Neuter Effect

Groups No Group differences No Group differences

Bare Noun Absent Present

Neuter < Congruent & Incongruent

Determiner+Noun Absent Present

Neuter < Congruent & Incongruent

Determiner+Noun Present Present

Session 2 Congruent < Incongruent Neuter < Congruent & Incongruent

Table 22 provides a summary of results for the two tasks completed in L2 Italian (the

Bare Noun, Determiner+Noun naming tasks). In the L2 Italian results we see an absence of either the gender-congruency effect or the neuter effect in the Bare Noun Naming task. In the

Determiner+Noun Naming task both effects are present: the gender-congruency effect goes in the predicted direction (images in the Congruent condition are named significantly faster than those in the Incongruent condition); in the neuter effect images in the Neuter condition are named significantly faster than those in the Incongruent condition, but there is no significant difference between images in the Neuter and Congruent conditions.

Table 22. Summary of results for all L2 Italian tasks in Experiment 1a

Task Gender-Congruency Effect Neuter Effect

Bare Noun Absent Absent

Determiner+Noun Present Present

Congruent < Incongruent Neuter < Incongruent

3.3 Methods: Experiment 1b

3.3.1 Participants

Participants were recruited and tested in two large cities in Austria. All participants were between 18-40 years old, were native speakers of German and all considered themselves to be dominant in German. No simultaneous bilinguals of any language combination were included.

This group, known hereafter as Late L2 Italian Speakers, was tested in either Salzburg or Vienna and spoke Italian as a second language. All participants were raised in Austria or Germany in

German-speaking households and began learning Italian after the age of fourteen. In addition to

Italian, all participants in this group reported speaking English as an additional L2 and 21 participants reported speaking an Austrian or German dialect of German in addition to Standard

German. A total of 26 participants were tested, with one excluded due to failure to return for

Session 2, leaving a total of 25 participants (1 male, 24 female). All participants provided written consent prior to taking part in the study and participation was voluntary. Participants were paid 7

Euro/hour for their participation and received payment following each of the two experimental sessions.

In addition to the main experimental tasks, participants completed the same series of supplementary tasks as in Experiment 1a, which were designed to measure individual variables, such as language proficiency, language background, working memory, and inhibitory control.

Results from a selection of these tasks are presented in Table 23. A full description of each supplementary task is provided in Section 3.1.3.1. General biographical information was obtained via a Language Background Questionnaire.

Table 23. Biographical information for Experiment 1b participants

M SD

Age (years) 24.76 4.91

Italian Cloze Test (%) 61.24 14.04

English Proficiency Test (%) 66.47 18.18

Age of first exposure to L2 14.64 2.94

Verbal Fluency Score (L1 total) 110.28 19.81

Verbal Fluency Score (L2 total) 71.68 22.84

Operation Span Score (total possible: 75) 52.00 14.36

Flanker Effect Score 51.57 29.03

Days between Sessions 8.44 2.65

As part of the Language Background Questionnaire, participants were asked to rate their language abilities on a variety of measures for both L1 German and L2 Italian on a scale of 1

(least like a native speaker) to 10 (most like a native speaker). Results for both L1 German and

L2 Italian are reported in Table 24. Mean ratings show that participants rated their native language ability between 9 and 10 on the 10-point scale, indicating high proficiency in their L1

German. Participants rated their L2 Italian ability between 6.96 and 8.40, indicating that they were less dominant in their L2 Italian, but still considered themselves to be highly-proficient speakers.

Table 24. Experiment 1b: Participant self-ratings in L1 German and L2 Italian

Language L1 German L2 Italian

M SD M SD

Speaking 9.96 0.20 7.24 1.45

Reading 9.96 0.20 7.96 1.37

Writing 9.92 0.28 7.12 1.59

Comprehension 10.00 0.00 8.40 1.47

Grammar 9.72 0.68 7.72 1.70

Vocabulary 9.92 0.28 6.96 1.70

Overall 9.96 0.20 7.68 1.38

Participants were asked to self-report their general language use by percentage in the environment in which they were currently living (i.e., in Austria). Though 21 of 25 participants reported speaking a German or Austrian dialect, for the purposes of filling out the Language

Background Questionnaire they were all instructed to consider the term “German” to include both the standard version of the language as well as their dialect. Table 25 displays percentages of L1 German use, L2 Italian use, and use of languages other than L1 or L2 (“Other”). Though participants were using their L1 German the majority of the time, they were speaking their L2

Italian nearly 20% of the time, despite living in an L1-dominant language environment (i.e.,

Austria).

Table 25. Experiment 1b: Reported language usage in percentages

Late L2 Italian Speakers13

M SD

L1 German 73.33 10.50

L2 Italian 19.17 8.81

Other 7.50 7.37

3.3.2 Materials

The same 72 experimental items, 24 filler items, and six practice items from Experiment

1a were used in Experiment 1b for a total of 102 items. As before, the experimental items were evenly divided into one of three conditions: Congruent (n = 24), Incongruent (n = 24), and

Neuter (n = 24). See Section 3.1.2 for more detailed information about experimental and filler items.

3.3.3 Procedure

The testing procedure in Experiment 1b was identical to Experiment 1a and is depicted in

Table 26. Testing took place over two sessions, approximately one week apart. In Session 1, which lasted approximately 90 minutes, all tasks were completed in L1 German. In Session 2, which lasted approximately 60 minutes, most tasks were completed in the L2 Italian. See Table

23 for the mean number of days between sessions.

13 One participant was excluded from analysis due to reporting language usage patterns totaling greater than 100%. So these values are based on the remaining 24 participants in this group. 97

Table 26. Complete list of tasks completed by Experiment 1b participants in each experimental session

Session 1 Session 2

L1 German L2 Italian

Consent Italian Cloze Test

Bare Noun Naming Determiner+Noun Naming

Determiner+Noun Naming Bare Noun Naming

Verbal Fluency Verbal Fluency

Language Background Determiner+Noun Naming

Questionnaire (L1 German)

Flanker Task English Proficiency Test

Automated Operation Span Debriefing

The procedure was identical to Experiment 1a. As in Experiment 1a, task order on the

Bare Noun and Determiner+Noun tasks was counterbalanced across participants.14

3.4 Results: Experiment 1b

3.4.1 Data Analysis

The data transcribing and coding process was identical to Experiment 1a. The percentage of data eliminated due to accuracy (“Acc”) and RT trims (“RT”) is reported in Table 27.

14 Because the order of tasks was counterbalanced, analyses were carried out to ensure that none of the effects in the main analyses were driven by the order in which participants completed the tasks. A series of 3 x 2 repeated measures ANOVAs with Task Order entered as a between-subjects variable showed that the overall effect of Task Order was not significant for L1 naming (all ps > .7), but was significant for L2 naming (all ps < .02). However, the pattern of results did not suggest that Task Order contributed to the primary effects found in the data and reported here. They will therefore not be considered further. 98

Table 27. Data eliminated from each task (percentage of items removed from total number of items possible)

% of data eliminated

Language Task Acc RT

L1 German Bare Noun 29.28 2.20

Determiner+Noun 29.39 3.30

Session 1

Determiner+Noun 26.83 2.89

Session 2

L2 Italian Bare Noun 32.67 3.88

Determiner+Noun 28.44 4.35

As in Experiment 1a, results will be reported for L1 German naming tasks first (Bare

Noun task, Determiner+Noun task, Determiner+Noun task completed during Session 2), followed by results for naming in L2 Italian (Bare Noun task, Determiner+Noun task). For all accuracy analyses, in the by-participant analyses, a repeated measures ANOVA was performed using accuracy as the dependent variable to test for differences between experimental conditions.

Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a within-subjects variable. In the by-item analyses, a one-way ANOVA was performed using accuracy as the dependent variable to test for differences. Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a between-subjects variable. In the by-participant analyses, the statistics are based on the percentage of accurate responses by Condition, calculated by dividing the number of items named correctly by each participant by a total of 24 items per Condition. In the by-item analyses,

99 the statistics are based on the percentage of accurate responses by the group as a whole, calculated by dividing the number of participants who named a particular item correctly by the total number of participants in the group (n = 25).

Naming times for each of the five tasks in Experiment 1b were analyzed by conducting 3 x 3 ANOVAs using naming times (in milliseconds) as the dependent variable to test for differences between experimental conditions. In all of the analyses, both participants (F1) and items (F2) were considered as random factors. In the by-participant analyses, which were run as repeated measures ANOVAs, Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a within-subjects variable. In the by-item analyses, which were run as one-way ANOVAs,

Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a between-subjects variable.

Finally, in order to ensure that the gender (masculine vs. feminine) of the targets in L2

Italian was not driving the results in the L1 German or L2 Italian naming times and to ensure that, especially in the Neuter condition (i.e., where the gender is neuter in German and masculine or feminine in Italian), participants were not employing an L2 default-gender strategy that could influence results from the main analyses, a series of 3 x 2 repeated measures ANOVAs with L2

Gender (Masculine vs. Feminine) entered as an additional within-subjects variable were conducted on all main tasks. Results in the L1 German and L2 Italian Bare Noun tasks, and the

L1 German Determiner+Noun task completed during Session 2 showed no significant Condition x L2 Gender interactions, indicating that the L2 gender of the images to be named was not driving the results in these tasks. A significant Condition x L2 Gender interaction was found in the L1 German Determiner+Noun task from Session 1, but follow-up ANOVAs run by isolating

L2 Gender (i.e., running only images whose noun is masculine in L2 Italian then running only images whose noun is feminine in L2 Italian) revealed a main effect of Condition regardless of

100

L2 Gender (all ps < .001). Finally, a Condition x L2 Gender interaction was found in the L2

Italian Determiner+Noun tasks. Follow-up ANOVAs run by isolating L2 Gender revealed that the main effect of Condition only appeared when the image was masculine in L2 Italian

(masculine nouns only: p = .004; feminine nouns only: p = .403). This is an interesting result, and certainly warrants further consideration, but given this is not the focus on the current dissertation, this question will be left to future research. As none of the discussed results here indicate that L2 Gender substantially explains any of the main results, L2 Gender will not be considered any further.

3.4.2 Predictions

As outlined in the predictions for Experiment 1a (Section 3.2.2), if speakers experience cross-language interaction at the grammatical level during language production in any of the five tasks in the L1 German or in the L2 Italian, we should find either a gender-congruency effect or a neuter effect. Such effects would appear as a main effect of Condition, with significant differences in naming times between Congruent and Incongruent images in the case of the gender-congruency effect, and significant differences in naming times between Neuter and

Congruent and/or Incongruent images in the case of the neuter effect. The presence of such effects indicates that gender systems are interacting with each other during language processing and the absence of this effect indicates that gender systems are not interacting with each other during language processing. Finally, if gender effects are found in both Bare Noun and

Determiner+Noun naming tasks, this is evidence that gender is always accessed during production, whereas if gender effects are found only in the Determiner+Noun condition, this is evidence that gender only accessed when explicitly required by the context.

101

3.4.3 Results: L1 German

Accuracy on the Bare Noun Naming task in L1 German is given in Table 28. Mean scores and standard deviations are given based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no significant effect of Condition (F1(2, 48) = 2.17, p1 = .126, partial η² = .083; F2(2, 69) = 0.32, p2 = .726, partial η² = .009).

Table 28. Accuracy on Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 95.67 4.42 95.33 4.22 93.50 5.65 94.83 3.55

Table 29. Naming times for Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 780 143 766 123 761 134 769 130

Naming time data for the Bare Noun Naming Task (L1 German) are given in Table 29.

The ANOVA revealed no main effect of Condition (F1(2, 48) = 1.65, p =.203, partial η² = .064;

F2(2, 69) = 0.77, p = .926, partial η² = .002).

Accuracy on the Determiner+Noun Naming task in L1 German are given in Table 30.

Mean scores and standard deviations are based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24

102 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no significant effect of Condition (F1(2, 48) = 0.85, p1 = .435, partial η² = .034; F2(2, 69) = 0.13, p2 = .879, partial η² = .004).

Table 30. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German), including naming the target word with its correct gender, in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 94.50 3.94 94.00 5.52 93.00 5.34 93.83 3.65

Table 31. Naming times for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 755 142 776 163 711 129 747 141

Naming time data for the Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German) are given in

Table 31. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Condition (F1(2, 48) = 13.66, p1 < .001, partial

η² = .363; F2(2, 69) = 4.23, p2 = .019, partial η² = .109). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Neuter condition were named significantly faster than images in the Incongruent condition (p1 < .000; p2 = .005). Images in the Neuter condition were named significantly faster than images in the Congruent condition in the by-participant but not in the by-item analysis (p1 =

.001; p2 = .149). There were no significant differences in naming times between images in the

Congruent and Incongruent conditions (p1 = .088; p2 = .152). This neuter effect is very similar to

103 the neuter effect observed in Experiment 1a, in which speakers named Neuter images significantly faster than Congruent or Incongruent images. Because the effect in Experiment 1a was also found in the Control group, who spoke no Italian, the effect is not attributable to influence of Italian in either Experiment 1a or in Experiment 1b.

Accuracy on the Determiner+Noun Naming task in L1 German, completed during

Session 2 following naming in L2 Italian, is given in Table 32. Mean scores and standard deviations are based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e.,

Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no significant effect of Condition (F1(2,

48) = 1.71, p1 = .191, partial η² = .067; F2(2, 69) = 0.23, p2 = .794, partial η² = .007).

Table 32. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German, Session 2), including naming the target word with its correct gender, in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 96.33 4.39 94.67 5.03 94.67 4.08 95.22 3.38

Table 33. Naming times for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German, Session 2) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 889 234 907 222 844 210 880 217

104

Naming time data for the Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L1 German), which was completed in Session 2 following naming in L2 Italian, are given in Table 33. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Condition in the by-participant analysis, that was not significant in the by-item analysis (F1(2, 48) = 7.66, p1 = .001, partial η² = .242; F2(2, 69) = 3.02, p2 = .055, partial

η² = .080). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Neuter condition were named faster than images in the Incongruent condition (p1 = .001; p2 = .017). Images in the Neuter condition were named significantly faster than images in the Congruent condition in the by-participant but not in the by-item analysis (p1 = .024; p2 = .231). There were no significant differences in naming times between images in the Congruent and Incongruent conditions (p1 = .189; p2 =

.216).

3.4.4 Results: L2 Italian

Moving to the L2 Italian data, accuracy on the Bare Noun Naming task in L2 Italian is given in Table 34. Mean scores and standard deviations based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Condition in the by-participant analysis that was not significant in the by-item analysis (F1(2, 48) = 6.19, p1 = .004, partial η² = .205; F2(2, 69) = 0.90, p2 = .413, partial η² =

.025). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Incongruent condition were named significantly more accurately than images in the Neuter condition (p1 = .003; p2 = .187) in the by-participant analysis. Accuracy on naming images between the Incongruent and Congruent conditions (p1 = .054; p2 = .451) and between the Congruent and Neuter conditions (p1 = .127; p2

= .567) did not differ significantly.

105

Table 34. Accuracy on Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 79.33 16.29 83.50 13.26 76.17 13.42 79.67 13.07

Table 35. Naming times for Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 1141 252 1118 255 1088 243 1116 239

Naming time data for the Bare Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) are given in Table 35.

The ANOVA revealed no main effect of Condition (F1(2, 48) = 2.22, p1 = .120, partial η² = .085;

F2(2, 69) = 0.69, p2 = .506, partial η² = .020).

Accuracy on the Determiner+Noun Naming task in L2 Italian is given in Table 36. Mean scores and standard deviations are given based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). The ANOVA revealed no main effect of Condition (F1(2, 48) = 1.84, p1 = .171, partial η² = .071; F2(2, 69) = 0.33, p2 = .717, partial η²

= .010).

106

Table 36. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian), including naming the target word with its correct gender, in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 77.00 17.39 79.17 16.14 74.67 13.01 76.94 14.07

Table 37. Naming times for Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 1117 218 1121 234 1097 235 1111 223

Naming time data for the Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian) are given in Table

37. The ANOVA revealed no main effect of Condition (F1(2, 48) = 0.90, p1 = .412, partial η² =

.036; F2(2, 69) = 0.07, p2 = .935, partial η² = .002).

3.4.5 Summary of Experiment 1b Results

Table 38 provides a summary of results for the three tasks completed in L1 German (the

Bare Noun, Determiner+Noun, and Determiner+Noun (Session 2) naming tasks). In the table, two effects are mentioned: the “gender-congruency effect” and the “neuter effect.” The gender- congruency effect is present whenever significant differences in naming times were observed between the Congruent and Incongruent conditions. The neuter effect is present whenever significant differences in naming times were observed between the Neuter condition and the

Congruent and/or Incongruent conditions. In the L1 German results there is an absence of any

107 effects in the Bare Noun Naming task. In both of the Determiner+Noun naming tasks, the neuter effect is present, showing that images in the Neuter condition were named significantly faster than those in the Congruent and Incongruent conditions (though note that this effect is similar to the effect found in Experiment 1a, in which the Control Group also showed the same effect). The gender-congruency effect is absent from both Determiner+Noun Naming tasks. This pattern of results differs from the pattern observed in Experiment 1a in that the Late L2 Italian Speakers showed no neuter effect in the Bare Noun task and no gender-congruency effect in the

Determiner+Noun task completed in Session 2.

Table 38. Summary of results for all L1 German tasks in Experiment 1b

Task Gender-Congruency Effect Neuter Effect

Bare Noun Absent Absent

Determiner+Noun Absent Present

Neuter < Congruent & Incongruent

Determiner+Noun Absent Present

(Session 2) Neuter < Congruent & Incongruent

Table 39 provides a summary of results for the two tasks completed in L2 Italian (the

Bare Noun and Determiner+Noun naming tasks). In the L2 Italian results there is no gender- congruency effect and no neuter effect in either the Bare Noun Naming task or the

Determiner+Noun Naming task. These results differ from those obtained in Experiment 1a, in which both a gender-congruency effect (Congruent < Incongruent) and a neuter effect (Neuter <

108

Incongruent) were observed in the Determiner+Noun Naming task among the South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol and in Austria.

Table 39. Summary of results for all L2 Italian tasks in Experiment 1b

Task Gender-Congruency Effect Neuter Effect

Bare Noun Absent Absent

Determiner+Noun Absent Absent

3.5 Discussion of Experiment 1

This chapter consisted of two experiments, identical in their design, carried out with speakers from different populations. In Experiment 1a, two experimental groups (South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol and South Tyroleans in Austria) of L1 German-L2 Italian speakers and a Control Group of L1 German-L2 English speakers named images. The two South Tyrolean groups were matched in terms of picture naming accuracy on the L2 Bare Noun task, performance on the Italian proficiency (cloze) test, working memory, and age of acquisition, but differed on two important measures: 1) language environment (i.e., whether they were living in bilingual South Tyrol or L1 German-dominant Austria); and 2) language use patterns (i.e., the

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol used more L2 Italian and less L1 German than the South

Tyroleans in Austria). In Experiment 1b, a group of late-learning L1 German-L2 Italian speakers living in the L1 German environment (Austria) named the same images. The major differences between this group and the two South Tyrolean groups in Experiment 1a were: 1) the age at which they began learning L2 Italian (i.e., later than the South Tyrolean groups); and 2) the environment in which they learned the L2 Italian.

109

Experiment 1 employed picture naming tasks, which have been used in previous studies to detect a gender-congruency effect in the L2 (e.g., Bordag & Pechmann, 2007; Klassen, 2016;

Paolieri, Cubelli, et al., 2010), to investigate whether (and how) the L1 gender system influences the L2 gender system during language production. Additionally, in order to expand upon previous research, Experiment 1 also asked the same groups of participants to name these same images in their L1 German in order to measure the influence of the L2 Italian gender system on the L1 German gender system. In each language, they named images using either the bare noun or the definite article + noun. In this way, it is possible to investigate potential cross-language interaction at the level of grammatical gender in these populations.

Table 40. Summary of Experiment 1a and 1b results for L2 Italian tasks

Task Bare Noun Det+Noun

L2 Italian L2 Italian

Experiment Exp 1a Exp 1b Exp 1a Exp 1b

Gen-Cong Absent Absent Present Absent

Effect

Neuter Effect Absent Absent Present Absent

The first goal of Experiment 1 was to see whether the gender-congruency effect, found in a variety of other studies with bilinguals (e.g., Bordag, 2004; Bordag & Pechmann, 2007;

Klassen, 2016; Lemhöfer et al., 2008; 2010; Morales et al., 2011; Paolieri, Cubelli, et al., 2010;

Salamoura & Williams, 2007), would be present in the L1 German-L2 Italian populations of the current study when naming images in their L2 Italian. Table 40 summarizes the results of both

110

Experiment 1a and Experiment 1b for the two tasks completed in the L2 Italian (i.e., the Bare

Noun condition and the Determiner+Noun condition). In the Bare Noun naming condition, the results are uniform: neither the two South Tyrolean groups in Experiment 1a nor the Late L2

Italian group in Experiment 1b showed a gender-congruency effect in this task. This is in line with previous studies that have failed to find a gender-congruency effect when speakers named with the bare noun (e.g., Lemhöfer et al., 2008; Salamoura & Williams, 2007), but in contrast with others who did find this effect when speakers named images with the bare noun (e.g.,

Bordag & Pechmann, 2007; Klassen, 2016; Morales et al., 2011; Paolieri, Cubelli, et al., 2010).

The finding of the current study appears to support language production models that assume gender is only selected when required by context (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999).

In contrast to the Bare Noun naming task, the German-Italian bilinguals in Experiment 1a exhibited a clear gender-congruency effect the Determiner+Noun task in that Congruent and

Neuter images were named significantly faster than Incongruent images. The fact that a gender- congruency effect was observed only in Determiner+Noun naming for Experiment 1a is in line with Salamoura and Williams (2007) and Lemhöfer et al. (2008) which found the same pattern of results (i.e., lack of an effect in Bare Noun naming, presence of an effect in Determiner+Noun naming). The neuter effect observed in Experiment 1a mirrors the effect found in Klassen

(2016), who also found that naming images in the Neuter condition patterned with the Congruent condition. The fact that Neuter images patterned with Congruent and not Incongruent images, further supports the claim made in Klassen (2016) that when gender systems are asymmetric, images belonging the unique gender (i.e., the gender found in only one of the two languages, here the neuter in German) is encoded separately from the other (shared) gender nodes and

111 experiences no interference from the activation of the other, shared, gender nodes (here, masculine and feminine).

In contrast to Experiment 1a, there was no gender-congruency effect in Experiment 1b in the Determiner+Noun naming condition. This effect is somewhat surprising, as only one previous picture naming study has found no gender-congruency effect in the Determiner+Noun naming condition (Costa, Kovacic, Franck, et al., 2003). This difference in results between the

South Tyrolean groups and the Late L2 Italian group could be related to the differences in age of first exposure to Italian or to the environment in which the L2 was learned. However, previous studies have found the gender-congruency effect in populations with similar language backgrounds to the Late L2 Italian group (e.g., Bordag & Pechmann, 2007; Klassen, 2016;

Salamoura & Williams, 2007), many of whom were also tested in the L1 environment (e.g.,

Bordag, 2004; Klassen, 2016; Salamoura & Williams, 2007). An alternative explanation is that the precise combination of language environment and language use patterns in this group are responsible for the lack any effects. Specifically, because this group consisted of mainly classroom learners of Italian living in a predominantly L1 environment, it is possible that these speakers had compartmentalized their language use more than populations tested in previous studies due to only needing Italian in restricted situations (mainly, in the classroom or in the lab).

As soon as they enter one of these spaces (the lab in the case of the current study), speakers know they must use their L2 Italian instead of their L1 German, thus allowing them to more completely inhibit influence from their L1 German in favor of using their L2 Italian.

The second goal of Experiment 1 was to see whether the gender-congruency effect could be found within L1 German-L2 Italian populations naming in their L1 German. Only Morales et al. (2011) has previously looked for effects of the L2 gender system on L1 naming, and found an

112 effect only for words that had been previously named in the L2. Table 41 displays the results for all L1 German tasks completed in Experiment 1. Any effects found were present in all groups, including the Control Group, who knew no Italian. It is therefore difficult to attribute these effects to influence from L2 Italian and, as such, these cannot be considered to be gender- congruency effects as found in previous studies. These results are marked in the table with an asterisk to remind the reader of this fact.

Table 41. Summary of Experiment 1a and 1b results for L1 German tasks

Task Bare Noun Det+Noun Det+Noun

L1 German L1 German L1 German

Session 2

Experiment Exp 1a Exp 1b Exp 1a Exp 1b Exp 1a Exp 1b

Gen-Cong Absent Absent Absent Absent Present* Absent

Effect

Neuter Effect Present* Absent Present* Present* Present* Present*

In the Bare Noun naming condition in L1 German, speakers in Experiment 1a failed to show a gender-congruency effect. A neuter effect was observed in Experiment 1a, but this effect cannot be attributed to influence from the L2 Italian as it was also observed in the Control

Group. The Late L2 Italian group in Experiment 1b did not show a gender-congruency effect nor did they show a neuter effect. The lack of any gender-congruency effects in the Bare Noun condition mirrors the L2 Italian results from Experiment 1 (i.e., where no effects were observed in the Bare Noun condition in either Experiment 1a or 1b) and is further evidence for language

113 production models that assume gender is only selected when required by context (e.g.,

Caramazza, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999).

Participants completed two Determiner+Noun naming tasks in their L1 German: once during Session 1 in which all tasks were completed in German and once during Session 2 after completing a series of naming and verbal fluency tasks in L2 Italian (or L2 English in the case of the Control Group). In Session 1, the results for naming in the Determiner+Noun condition revealed no gender-congruency effect in Experiment 1a or Experiment 1b. In addition, a neuter effect was observed in both Experiment 1a and Experiment 1b, in which Neuter images were named faster than Congruent or Incongruent images. However, because this neuter effect was also observed in the Control Group (Experiment 1a), it cannot be attributed to the influence of

L2 Italian and is thus not considered a true effect of gender-congruency in either Experiment 1a or 1b.

In Session 2, the results for naming in the Determiner+Noun, which immediately followed completion of a series of L2 Italian tasks, revealed a gender-congruency effect in

Experiment 1a. The Experiment 1a result would be in line with Morales et al. (2011) who found an effect for words that had been named previously in the L2 (which was also the case in the current study), however due to the fact that this effect was also found in the Control Group, it cannot be attributed to influence from L2 Italian. Finally, just as in the L1 German

Determiner+Noun naming task in Session 1, a neuter effect was observed for Experiment 1a, in which Neuter images were named faster than Congruent and Incongruent images. However, this effect was also present in the Control Group, who did not speak any Italian, and therefore cannot be attributed to the influence from L2 Italian. In Experiment 1b, no gender-congruency effect was observed. A neuter effect was observed in that Neuter images were named faster than

114

Congruent and Incongruent images. This pattern of this effect is identical to the effect found in

Experiment 1a, but as the effect was also observed in the Control Group in Experiment 1a, who didn’t speak Italian, it cannot be attributed to influence from the L2 Italian gender system. Taken together, the results from the three naming tasks in L1 German (i.e., Bare Noun naming,

Determiner+Noun naming in Session 1, Determiner+Noun naming in Session 2) show that none of the groups tested produced a measurable gender-congruency effect attributable to the influence of the L2 Italian gender system.

Finally, while no group differences were found between the two South Tyrolean groups with regard to the gender-congruency effect, differences between groups were observed with regard to lexical access, as measured by overall naming times on the picture naming tasks and performance on a verbal fluency task. For example, overall naming times differed between the

South Tyrolean groups in Experiment 1a on all but one naming task (no difference was observed in L2 Bare Noun naming). Specifically, the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol were faster overall when naming in the L2 Italian compared to the South Tyroleans in Austria. However, when naming in their L1 German, the South Tyroleans in Austria were faster in Session 1

(Determiner+Noun naming only), but after the switch from naming in L2 Italian to L1 German in

Session 2, the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol were again faster naming overall. Relatedly, performance on the verbal fluency task showed that the South Tyroleans in Austria named, on average, significantly more words overall than the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol in their L1

German (groups did not differ in their L2 Italian). These differences between groups that differ in language environment pattern with results of previous studies which have found an impact of language environment on lexical access (e.g., Baus et al., 2013; Linck et al., 2009). This combination of findings raises the possibility to factors such as language environment and

115 language use patterns have an impact on lexical access in general, even when there is no visible impact of language environment on production patterns at the grammatical level. This possibility will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

116

CHAPTER 4: Experiment 2

4.1 Methods: Experiment 2a

4.1.1 Participants

Similar to Experiment 1a, three groups of participants were recruited and tested in South

Tyrol, Italy and in Austria. All participants were between 18-40 years old, were native speakers of German and all considered themselves to be dominant in German. No simultaneous bilinguals of any language combination were included. The first group, known hereafter as South Tyroleans in South Tyrol, was tested in the city of Bolzano in South Tyrol, Italy and spoke Italian as a second language. All participants in this group were raised in South Tyrol in German-speaking households and began learning Italian around six years old. In addition to Italian, all participants in this group reported speaking English as an additional L2 and reported speaking a South

Tyrolean dialect in addition to Standard German. A total of 24 participants were tested, with one excluded due to being a simultaneous German-Russian bilingual, leaving a total of 23 participants (4 male, 19 female). The second group, known hereafter as South Tyroleans in

Austria, was tested either in Salzburg or Vienna, Austria, and spoke Italian as a second language.

All participants in this group were raised in South Tyrol in German-speaking households, but were living in Austria at the time of testing. Participants in this group began learning Italian around six years old. In addition to Italian, all participants in this group reported speaking

English as an additional L2 and reported speaking a South Tyrolean dialect in addition to

Standard German. A total of 25 participants were tested (4 male, 21 female).15 The third group,

15 Eight of the participants in this group also participated in Experiment 1. To avoid effects due to priming from Experiment 1, participants had nearly four weeks between the conclusion of Experiment 1 and the start of Experiment 2 (M = 59.63 days, SD = 22.60, Range = 27-83). 117 known hereafter as the Control Group, was tested in Salzburg, Austria and spoke English as a second language. All participants were raised in Austria or Germany in German-speaking households and began learning English around the age of eight and a half. Twenty-three of 29 participants in this group reported speaking an Austrian or German dialect of German in addition to Standard German. These participants had no knowledge of Italian.16 A total of 29 participants were tested, with one excluded due to being an L1 Russian speaker and one excluded for being a simultaneous German-Czech-Slovak trilingual, leaving a total of 27 participants (7 male, 20 female). Overall, 75 participants were included in the analyses for Experiment 2a. All participants provided written consent prior to taking part in the study and participation was voluntary. Participants were paid 7 Euro/hour for their participation and received payment following each of the two experimental sessions.

In addition to the main experimental tasks, participants completed a series of supplementary tasks, the majority of which were identical to those administered in Experiment 1, which were designed to measure individual variables, such as language proficiency, language background, working memory, and inhibitory control. Results from a selection of these tasks are presented in Table 42. A description of each supplementary task is provided in Section 3.1.3.1, for those that were used in Experiment 1, or in Section 4.1.3.1 for those tasks only administered in Experiment 2. General biographical information was obtained via a Language Background

Questionnaire. There was a statistically significant difference between the ages of the three participant groups as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 72) = 4.75, p = .012, partial η² =

.117). Post-hoc comparisons showed that the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol were significantly

16 Four participants had previously received instruction in Italian, but had not used the language for four or more years prior to testing and reported very low proficiency in Italian. Therefore, they were still included in all analyses reported here to increase statistical power. 118 older than the South Tyroleans in Austria (p = .003). There were no significant differences in age between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the Control Group (p = .125) or between the

South Tyroleans in Austria and the Control Group (p = .109). In addition to a difference in participant age, a one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the ages of first exposure to their respective L2s between the three groups (F(2, 72) = 19.67, p <

.001, partial η² = .353). Planned comparisons showed that the Control Group’s age of first exposure to English occurred at a significantly older age than both South Tyrolean groups’ first exposure to Italian (all ps < .001), but that the two South Tyrolean groups did not differ from each other in their age of first exposure to Italian (p = .523).

English for the Control group) and to ascertain relative language dominance between L1 German and L2 Italian/English. A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in performance on the Italian cloze test between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the South Tyroleans in

Austria (F(1, 46) = 4.85, p = .033, partial η² = .095), with the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol outperforming the South Tyroleans in Austria. To analyze the verbal fluency data, a repeated measures ANOVA was run with Language as a within-subjects factor and Group as a between- subjects factor. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Language (F(1, 72) = 342.20, p < .001, partial η² = .826), with groups naming more words overall in L1 German than in L2

Italian/English. There was no main effect of Group (F(2, 72) =0.55, p = .582, partial η² = .015).

There was a Language x Group interaction (F(2, 72) = 16.37, p < .001, partial η² = .313). Follow

119 up one-way ANOVAs treated Language as the dependent variable and Group as the between- subjects variable. The first ANOVA showed that in the L1 German there was a main effect of

Group (F(2, 72) = 4.45, p = .015, partial η² = .110). Planned comparisons showed that the South

Tyroleans in Austria named significantly more words in the L1 than the South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol (p = .004). There were no significant differences between either the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the Control Group (p = .165) or between the South Tyroleans in Austria and the Control Group (p = .100). The second ANOVA showed that in the L2 there was no main effect of Group (F(2, 72) = 0.66, p = .520, partial η² = .018).

Tyroleans in South Tyrol, the South Tyroleans in Austria, and the Control Group (F(2, 72) =

0.55, p = .577, partial η² = .015). A one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences in performance on the Flanker task between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol, the South

Tyroleans in Austria, and the Control Group (F(2, 72) = 1.94, p = .151, partial η² = .051).

120

Table 42. Biographical information for all three Experiment 2a participant groups

Group South Tyroleans South Tyroleans Control Group

in South Tyrol in Austria

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Age (years) 27.09 (5.81) 22.64 (2.48) 24.89 (5.90)

Italian Cloze Test (%) 65.51 (19.03) 54.40 (15.88) n/a

English Proficiency Test (%) 55.29 (21.19) 61.77 (17.78) 69.16 (14.89)

Age of first exposure to L2 6.44 (1.56) 6.14 (1.41) 8.67 (1.76)

Time in Austria (months) n/a 30.26 (21.44) n/a

Verbal Fluency Score (L1 total) 100.43 (21.54) 119.44 (25.81) 109.22 (18.56)

Verbal Fluency Score (L2 total) 79.52 (23.24) 72.56 (21.45) 76.00 (18.33)

Operation Span Score (total 55.96 (11.12) 59.32 (12.14) 57.04 (10.83) possible: 75)

Flanker Effect Score 51.09 (22.50) 61.12 (25.40) 49.63 (19.67)

Days between Sessions 8.22 (1.76) 7.76 (3.17) 8.19 (2.75)

Results for both L1 German and L2 Italian/English are reported in Table 43. One-way ANOVAs revealed that groups differed significantly on many of these variables in their L1 German self- ratings (speaking: F(2, 72) = 10.26, p < .001, partial η² = .222; reading: F(2, 72) = 4.31, p = .017, partial η² = .107; writing: F(2, 72) = 6.31, p = .003, partial η² = .149; grammar: F(2, 72) = 6.93, p

121

= .002, partial η² = .161; overall: F(2, 72) = 7.77, p = .001, partial η² = .177). Planned comparisons revealed that all differences were between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the remaining two groups (all ps < .02), with the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol rating their L1

German abilities significantly lower than the other two groups. There were no significant differences between the South Tyroleans in Austria and the Control Group (all ps > .2). In other words, the group living in the bilingual language environment (i.e., South Tyrol) was significantly different with respect to their L1 German self-ratings from the groups living in the

L1 German environment (i.e., Austria), though it should be noted, that their mean L1 German ratings were all at 9 or above out of 10. There were no significant differences between groups on the variables comprehension (p = .327) or vocabulary (p = .144). In spite of group differences on the variables listed above, however, all groups rated their native language ability between 9 and

10 on the 10-point scale, indicating high proficiency in their L1 German across groups. In the L2 self-ratings (Italian for the South Tyrolean groups, English for the Control Group), there was a statistically significant difference between the three groups on the measure of L2 vocabulary as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 72) = 3.89, p = .025, partial η² = .098). Planned comparisons revealed that the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol rated their L2 Italian vocabulary knowledge higher than the South Tyroleans in Austria (p = .007). No differences were observed between the Control Group and the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol (p = .215) or the South

Tyroleans in Austria (p = .111). Aside from the vocabulary ratings, there were no additional significant differences between groups on their L2 self-ratings (all ps > .1).

122

Table 43. Experiment 2a: Participant self-ratings in L1 German and L2 Italian/English

Group South Tyroleans in South Tyroleans in Control Group

South Tyrol Austria

Language L1 Germ L2 Ital L1 Germ L2 Ital L1 Germ L2 Engl

M M M M M M

(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Speaking 9.43 7.52 9.92 6.64 9.93 7.04

(0.66) (1.31) (0.28) (1.60) (0.27) (1.32)

Reading 9.61 8.24 9.92 7.72 9.93 7.67

(0.66) (1.13) (0.28) (1.51) (0.27) (1.47)

Writing 9.26 7.48 9.68 6.64 9.89 6.85

(0.69) (1.38) (0.75) (1.66) (0.42) (1.38)

Comprehension 9.91 8.61 10.00 8.44 10.00 7.93

(0.42) (1.37) (0.00) (1.42) (0.00) (1.54)

Grammar 9.00 7.26 9.76 6.96 9.67 7.00

(1.04) (1.84) (0.52) (1.77) (0.68) (1.49)

Vocabulary 9.48 7.61 9.64 6.40 9.78 7.07

(0.59) (1.27) (0.49) (1.78) (0.51) (1.41)

Overall 9.43 7.78 9.88 7.02 9.89 7.37

(0.66) (1.28) (0.33) (1.45) (0.32) (1.21)

Participants were asked to self-report their general language use by percentage in the environment in which they were currently living (i.e., in Bolzano for the South Tyroleans in

123

South Tyrol and in Austria for the South Tyroleans in Austria and the Control Group). Though all participants in the South Tyrolean groups also reported being speakers of a South Tyrolean dialect, and 22 of 27 participants in the Control Group reported speaking a German or Austrian dialect, for the purposes of filling out the Language Background Questionnaire they were all instructed to consider the term “German” to include both the standard version of the language as well as their dialect. Table 44 displays percentages of L1 German use, L2 Italian/L2 English use, and use of languages other than L1 or L2 (“Other”). There was a statistically significant difference between the three groups with regard to L1 German use as determined by a one-way

ANOVA (F(2, 71) = 21.15, p < .001, partial η² = .373). Planned comparisons revealed that the

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol reported using L1 German significantly less than the South

Tyroleans in Austria (p < .001) or the Control Group (p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in reported L1 German use between the South Tyroleans in Austria and the

Control Group (p = .434). There was a statistically significant difference between the three groups with regard to L2 use (Italian for the South Tyrolean groups, English for the Control

Group) as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 71) = 39.04, p < .001, partial η² = .524).

Planned comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between all three groups with respect to L2 use. The South Tyroleans in South Tyrol reported significantly more use of L2

Italian than the South Tyroleans in Austria (p < .001) and of L2 English in the Control Group (p

< .001). The Control Group reported using L2 English significantly more than the South

Tyroleans in Austria reported using L2 Italian (p = .040). Finally, there was a statistically significant difference between the three groups with regard to use of additional languages

(“Other”) as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 71) = 5.10, p = .009, partial η² = .126).

Planned comparisons revealed that the South Tyroleans in Austria reported using additional

124 languages significantly more than the Control Group (p = .002). There was no significant difference in use of additional languages reported between the two South Tyrolean groups (p =

.103) or between the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the Control Group (p = .164). These results verify that the South Tyrolean groups were indeed distinct from one another with regard to language use, with the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol speaking more L2 Italian and less L1

German compared to the South Tyroleans in Austria.

Table 44. Experiment 2a: Reported language usage in percentages

South Tyroleans in South Tyroleans in Control Group

South Tyrol17 Austria

M SD M SD M SD

L1 German 59.09 16.30 81.60 16.75 84.82 10.87

L2 Italian/English 35.00 14.39 7.20 7.37 13.70 11.15

Other 5.91 10.98 11.20 15.36 1.48 3.62

4.1.2 Materials

The same images from Experiment 1 were used in Experiment 2. These included the identical 72 experimental items, 24 filler items, and six practice items from Experiment 1 for a total of 102 items (see Appendix A for a full list of stimuli). As before, the experimental items were evenly divided into one of three conditions: Congruent (n = 24), Incongruent (n = 24), and

17 One participant was excluded from analysis due to reporting language usage patterns totaling greater than 100%. So these values are based on the remaining 22 participants in this group. 125

Neuter (n = 24). See Section 3.1.2 for more detailed information about experimental and filler items.

In Experiment 1, images were presented to participants in isolation; participants saw one image at a time and were asked to name the image using either the bare noun or the definite article along with the noun. In Experiment 2, these same images were shown to participants, but this time each image was embedded in a sentence (see Appendices B, C, D, & E for a full list of target and filler sentences and a complete list of comprehension questions in German and in

Italian). For each target image, two types of sentences were created: High Constraint, or sentences in which the target word was predictable by the preceding context, and Low

Constraint, or sentences in which the target word was not predictable by the preceding context.

As Table 45 shows, one High- and one Low-constraint sentence were created in both L1 German and L2 Italian for each target image. Sentences were designed such that all target images were singular and were immediately preceded by the definite article in both languages. In the Italian sentences, this definite article was never contracted with a preposition (e.g., nel, della) in order to maintain consistency across items and languages. In the German sentences, the target could only be in the nominative or accusative case. German has a high level of case syncretism, such that in the genitive and dative cases the masculine and neuter articles have the same form (des and dem respectively). By using only the nominative and accusative cases, this ensured that the article was always unambiguous with regard to the gender of the upcoming noun. Finally, the target image never appeared in the sentence final position.

126

Table 45. Examples of high-constraint and low-constraint sentences in German and Italian

Language Constraint Target: shower L1 High Nach dem Sport geht der verschwitzte Athlet unter die Dusche, German um sich zu waschen. “After his workout the sweaty athlete headed into the shower to wash himself.” Low Nachdem wir in die neue Wohnung eingezogen sind, mussten wir die Dusche reparieren lassen. “After we moved into the new apartment we had to have the shower repaired.” L2 Italian High Ai bambini piace fare il bagno, ma di solito gli adulti fanno la doccia per pulirsi. “Kids love to take a bath, but adults take a shower to get clean.” Low Nella capanna che affittiamo quando andiamo in vacanza, c'è la doccia nel bagno, ma non la vasca. “In the hut that we rent on vacation there is a shower, but no tub.”

To ensure that target images in High-Constraint sentences were more predictable and that target images in Low-Constraint sentence were less predictable, all potential sentences were normed using online surveys with two populations of speakers: L1 German speakers from South

Tyrol or Austria (n = 84) and L1 Italian speakers from Italy (n = 88). Participants saw the initial part of the sentence up until the target word was to appear. At this point the sentence was cut off and participants were asked to write in their best guess for what the next word in the sentence would be. Because not all participants chose to fill in a word for every sentence, each individual sentence required at minimum of 15 and a maximum of 21 responses in order to be evaluated for inclusion in the experiment.

The goal was for the High-Constraint sentences to have a high predictability percentage and the Low-Constraint sentences to have a low predictability percentage. Table 46 shows the mean predictability percentages obtained through norming for the sentences that were ultimately included in the current study. These percentages reflect the percentage of participants who

127 provided the target word as their response. Ideally, a High-Constraint sentence should yield a particular target word from all respondents and a Low-Constraint sentence would yield as many different possible responses as there were participants. In the case of the Low-Constraint sentences, care was also taken to ensure that not only were participants not able to predict the target item from the context, but also that they did not overwhelmingly predict a different word.

For example, if a Low-Constraint sentence was written so that the target “shower” should be unpredictable, but 15 of 20 participants answered “bathtub” instead of “shower,” this sentence was considered highly constrained for “bathtub” and was excluded from inclusion in the current study if more than 56% of participants named, for example, “bathtub.”

Table 46. Predictability percentages for high and low constraint sentences (in percentages)

Language Constraint M SD

L1 German High 85.74 15.85

Low 5.55 12.16

L2 Italian High 87.47 13.93

Low 5.26 10.10

Following norming, the final German sentences chosen for inclusion in the current study were between 9-22 words and the final Italian sentences were between 10-24 words overall.

Critically, the number of words that appeared prior to the target image did not differ significantly between High- (M = 10.68, SD = 2.77) and Low- (M = 10.32, SD = 2.16) Constraint sentences in

German (F(1, 142) = 0.76, p = .385, partial η² = .005). In Italian there was a significant difference between the number of pre-target words in High- (M = 10.97, SD = 3.05) and Low-

128

(M = 10.11, SD = 1.87) Constraint sentences (F(1, 142) = 4.18, p = .043, partial η² = .029), although this difference was, on average, less than one full word.

To ensure that each participant saw a particular target image only once, in either a High-

Constraint or Low-Constraint sentence, two lists were created. Lists were matched for predictability percentage, number of pre-target words, and total words. A series of independent t- tests were conducted to ensure that the two lists were matched on these variables across all

Constraints (High vs. Low) and Conditions (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) in the

German sentences (all ps > .1) and in the Italian sentences (all ps > .2). Lists were counterbalanced so that half of participants completed List 1 and half completed List 2.

Sentences were also designed for the 24 filler images included in Experiment 2 (which were identical to those used in Experiment 1). Half were High-Constraint sentences (n = 12) and half were Low-Constraint sentences (n = 12). Both List 1 and List 2 contained the same 24 filler sentences. To ensure that participants were reading and understanding the sentences, a comprehension question followed each of the filler sentences. These questions required the participant to have read and understood the sentence in order to answer correctly.

4.1.3 Procedure

Just as in Experiment 1, testing took place over two sessions, depicted in Table 47, approximately one week apart. In Session 1, which lasted approximately 90 minutes, all tasks were completed in L1 German. In Session 2, which lasted approximately 60 minutes, most tasks were completed in L2 Italian for the experimental groups and in L2 English for the Control

Group. See Table 42 for the mean number of days between sessions by group. Importantly, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups with regard to amount of time

129 between sessions as determined by a one-way ANOVA (F(2, 72) = 0.23, p = .794, partial η² =

.006).

Table 47. Complete list of tasks completed by Experiment 2a participants in each experimental session

Session 1 Session 2

All 3 Groups South Tyroleans in South Tyrol Control Group

South Tyroleans in Austria

L1 German L2 Italian L2 English

Consent Italian Cloze Test / L2 Story English Proficiency Test

Narration

Sentence Naming Sentence Naming ---

Verbal Fluency Verbal Fluency Verbal Fluency

Language Background Determiner+Noun Naming Determiner+Noun Naming

Questionnaire

Flanker Task English Proficiency Test Picture Description (L1) or

Word Naming (L2) Task

Automated Operation Span Debriefing Debriefing

Participants began Session 1 by providing written consent. They then completed the

Sentence Naming task in L1 German. As stated above, two lists were created so that each image was embedded within a High-Constraint sentence in one list, and within a Low-Constraint sentence in the other, so that each participant saw a particular target only once. Lists were counterbalanced to ensure even distribution of target images appearing in both types of

130 sentences, with half of participants using List 1 and half using List 2. Next, participants completed a Verbal Fluency task in L1 German. Following this, participants filled out an extensive Language Background Questionnaire. Finally, two cognitive tasks were completed: a

Flanker task to measure inhibitory control (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974) and an Automated

Operation Span task to measure working memory (Unsworth et al., 2005). See Section 3.1.3.1 for a detailed description of each of these supplementary tasks.

Session 2 took place approximately one week after Session 1. Participants in the two experimental groups (i.e., South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and South Tyroleans in Austria) first completed a proficiency test in their L2 Italian and participants in the Control Group completed a proficiency test in their L2 English. The eight participants in the South Tyroleans in Austria group who had participated in Experiment 1a completed the L2 Story Narration task in place of the proficiency task, as they had already completed the L2 Italian proficiency task in Experiment

1a. These tasks (i.e., L2 proficiency task or L2 Story Narration task) were administered prior to the L2 Sentence Naming in order to boost activation of the L2 and to ease participants into L2 mode. Following the written tests, the South Tyrolean groups completed the Sentence Naming task again, this time in L2 Italian. The Control Group did not complete this task. Next, all groups completed the Verbal Fluency task in their L2 Italian or L2 English (the eight participants who had participated in Experiment 1a did not complete this task, as they had already done so in the previous experiment), which was identical to the version in Session 1 except that the task was presented and completed in the L2 instead of the L1. All participants then completed a picture- naming task in their L2 (Italian for the South Tyrolean groups and English for the Control

Group) in which they were asked to name images with the definite article and the noun. This task was identical to the Determiner+Noun Naming task used in Experiment 1 and contained all of

131 the target and filler nouns that appeared in the Sentence Naming tasks. The purpose of this task was to measure how well participants could assign gender to the target images from the Sentence

Naming tasks in the L2 Italian (the Control Group simply used “the” in their L2 English for this task, as English has no grammatical gender system). Following this, the South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol and the South Tyroleans in Austria completed an English proficiency task (the eight participants who had participated in Experiment 1a did not complete this task as they had already done so in the previous experiment), as all participants noted knowledge of English on their

Language Background Questionnaires. In order to keep the overall testing time approximately equal across all groups, the Control Group completed one of two possible tasks (unrelated to the current study): a Picture Description task in their L1 German or a Word Naming task in their L2

English. Finally, all groups completed a short debriefing form. See Section 4.1.3.1 for more detailed descriptions of the additional supplementary tasks completed in Experiment 2a.

The sentence naming experiments were programmed and presented using E-Prime 2.0

(Schneider et al., 2002). Participants were tested individually in a quiet room and were seated in front of a laptop computer. Naming responses were recorded with a digital recorder for later transcription and coding and naming latencies were recorded by a microphone attached to a button box. Naming latencies were measured from the onset of the image until a response was given. Participants were provided written instructions on the screen in the language of the task

(L1 German during Session 1, L2 Italian during Session 2) and were asked to name images by giving the noun only. Following the instructions, each participant received six practice trials to familiarize themselves with the procedure and timing of the experiment. Prior to beginning the experiment proper, participants were given the opportunity to ask any remaining questions they had. Each trial consisted of an initial fixation point, which remained until the participant

132 indicated with a keystroke that they were ready to continue. Once the participant hit the spacebar, the sentence started and was presented using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP).

In other words, each word of the sentence appeared one at a time in the center of the screen for

300ms. At the point in the sentence where the target word was to be named, an image centered on the screen appeared instead of a word and remained for a maximum of 5000ms, or until a response was registered. Once a response was recorded, or the 5000ms interval was exceeded, the image disappeared and the remaining words in the sentence appeared in word-by-word fashion. At the conclusion of the sentence, participants saw either the next trial’s fixation point or were given a comprehension question which they had to answer with a keystroke indicating a

YES or a NO answer. After an answer was provided, or after an interval of 10 seconds, the question disappeared and the next sentence’s fixation point appeared.

4.1.3.1 Additional Supplementary Tasks

4.1.3.1.1 L2 Story Narration

The L2 Story Narration task was used to fill the void left by the L2 Italian proficiency task for those participants who took part in both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. As these participants had already completed the proficiency task during Experiment 1, they did not complete this test a second time. However, part of the justification for putting the Italian proficiency task prior in order to the Sentence Naming task was to heighten the L2 mode of participants, so to keep this equal across all participants, a replacement L2 task was used.

Participants were given a copy of the illustrated story, Frog, where are you? (Mayer, 1969), and told to pretend they were telling the story to a group of Italian-speaking schoolchildren and that they should use the pictures to help them create a story in their L2 Italian. Participants were given 3-5 minutes to look through the pictures and to invent a story and then they “performed”

133 their narration. Although it was recorded digitally, this task was not transcribed or coded, as its main purpose was solely to keep testing conditions equal across all participants and to ensure that this sub-group of participants had the same chance to ease into their L2 mode as the remaining participants.

4.1.3.1.2 Determiner+Noun Naming Task (L2 Italian/English)

This naming task was identical to the task used in Experiment 1 and included all 72 target and 24 filler images used in the Sentence Naming tasks in Experiment 2. Participants saw images and were asked to name them in L2 Italian/L2 English using the definite article and the noun. In

Experiment 2 however, this task was used to measure participants’ knowledge of L2 Italian gender of the target words. Accuracy was coded according to whether participants were able to name images by providing the target word and its correct gender (in the Italian version), regardless of disfluencies, having to name the image twice, voicekey failures, or having named the target word correctly in the alternate language.

4.2 Results: Experiment 2a

4.2.1 Data Analysis

For the two Sentence Naming tasks, recorded responses were transcribed and coded by the researcher. Items were eliminated from analysis on a task-by-task basis due to: a) the participant providing a non-target word on the current task; b) the participant providing a non- target word or gender in the other language (i.e., if the participant used a non-target word, Mond,

“moon” in the German Sentence Naming task, this item was excluded from analysis on the

Italian Sentence Naming task even if they used the target word, sole, “sun”); c) the participant used a non-target word and/or non-target gender on the L2 Italian Determiner+Noun Naming

134 task; d) technical issues (e.g., having to repeat the word or the voicekey failing to register a response); or e) responses included a sound before the word (e.g., a cough, disfluencies, the onset of a non-target word). Table 48 provides the percentages for the amount of data eliminated due to these factors, indicated on the table with “Acc,” (accuracy) from each task for each group.

Following this initial trimming procedure, additional data was trimmed based on RTs. Items were eliminated when: a) the response was registered faster than 200 milliseconds or longer than

3000 milliseconds; or b) the response was faster/slower than 2.5 standard deviations from each individual participant’s mean response time. The amount of data from each task eliminated due to this additional trim is also given in Table 48 for each group and is indicated on the table with

“RT.”

Table 48. Data eliminated from each task by group (percentage of items removed from total number of items possible)

% of data eliminated

South Tyroleans South Tyroleans Control Group

in South Tyrol in Austria

Language Task Acc RT Acc RT Acc RT

L1 German Sentence Naming 23.25 3.70 18.33 2.31 20.94 3.51

L2 Italian Sentence Naming 23.15 5.27 5.31 2.60 ------

Results will be reported first for the L2 Determiner+Noun picture naming task, to demonstrate L2 gender accuracy by group. Similar to Experiment 1, in which performance on the

L2 Determiner+Noun Naming task was used to determine which items were eliminated from the

L1 analyses (and L2 Bare Noun naming task analyses), in Experiment 2, performance on this

135 task determined which items would be included and analyzed on the L1 German and L2 Italian sentence tasks. If a participant could not name the correct target item or its gender on this task, this item was eliminated from analyses of the main two sentence tasks. Following the results from the L2 Determiner+Noun naming task, results are given for the L1 German Sentence

Naming and L2 Italian Sentence Naming tasks. For each task, overall accuracy will be reported first, followed by Comprehension Question accuracy, followed by the critical naming time data.

Descriptions of the analyses used for both accuracy and naming times for both tasks are outlined below.

Similar to Experiment 1, overall accuracy shows how well participants were able to name images during the online task by providing the target word, regardless of disfluencies, having to name the image twice, voicekey failures, or having named the target word correctly in the alternate language or on the Determiner+Noun Naming task in L2 Italian. For both the German

Sentence Naming and Italian Sentence Naming, mean accuracy and standard deviations are reported.

Naming times for the German Sentence Naming task were analyzed by conducting a 2 x

3 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA using naming times (in milliseconds) as the dependent variable to test for differences between participant groups and experimental conditions. Both participants

(F1) and items (F2) were considered as random factors. In the by-participant analysis, Group

(South Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria vs. Control Group) was entered as a between-subjects variable, and Constraint (High vs. Low) and Condition (Congruent vs.

Incongruent vs. Neuter) were entered as within-subjects variables. In the by-item analysis, Group

(South Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria vs. Control Group) and

Constraint (High vs. Low) were entered as within-items variables and Condition (Congruent vs.

136

Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a between-items variable. For the Italian Sentence

Naming, which did not include the Control Group, a 2 x 3 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using naming times (in milliseconds) as the dependent variable to test for differences between participant groups and experimental conditions. Both participants (F1) and items (F2) were considered as random factors. In the by-participant analysis, Group (South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria) was entered as a between-subjects variable, and

Constraint (High vs. Low) and Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) were entered as within-subjects variables. In the by-item analysis, Group (South Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs.

South Tyroleans in Austria) and Constraint (High vs. Low) were entered as within-items variables and Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a between-items variable.

Finally, in order to ensure that the gender (masculine vs. feminine) of the targets in L2

Italian was not driving the results in the L1 German or L2 Italian Sentence naming times and to ensure that, especially in the Neuter condition (i.e., where the gender is neuter in German and masculine or feminine in Italian), participants were not employing a L2 default-gender strategy that influenced results from the main analyses, a series of 3 x 2 x 3 repeated measures ANOVAs with L2 Gender entered as an additional within-subjects variable were conducted on both L1

German and L2 Italian Sentence Naming tasks. Results showed no evidence that the L2 gender of the images to be named was driving the results. L2 Gender will therefore not be considered any further.

4.2.2 Predictions

If speakers experience cross-language interaction at the grammatical level during language production in either the L1 German or in the L2 Italian sentence naming tasks, we

137 should find either a gender-congruency effect or a neuter effect. Such effects would appear as a main effect of Condition, with significant differences in naming times between Congruent and

Incongruent images in the case of the gender-congruency effect, and significant differences in naming times between Neuter and Congruent and/or Incongruent images in the case of the neuter effect. The presence of this effect indicates that gender systems are interacting with each other during language processing and the absence of this effect indicates that gender systems are not interacting with each other during language processing. If the presence of the gender-congruency effect is modulated by Contraint (High vs. Low), we should see a Condition x.Constraint interaction, indicating that the gender-congruency effect is only present, for example, in the

High-Constraint sentences but absent in the Low-Constraint sentences. Finally, if the amount of interaction between gender systems is modulated by language environment (bilingual vs. L1 dominant), we expect to find a Group x Condition interaction showing that the gender- congruency effect is present in only one of the two South Tyrolean groups.

4.2.3 Results: L2 Gender Accuracy

During Session 2, The South Tyrolean participants completed a Determiner+Noun

Picture Naming task in their L2 Italian in order to measure their knowledge in the L2 of the target words and their genders that appeared on the Sentence Naming tasks. Accuracy is reported in Table 49 with mean scores and standard deviations given based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). Importantly, the high mean percentages across all three conditions indicate that these groups were accurate at naming both the target items and their genders.

138

Table 49. Accuracy on L2 (Italian/English) Determiner+Noun Picture Naming Task in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 86.59 9.14 88.77 6.58 85.33 8.51 86.90 6.81 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 86.17 13.05 86.33 11.88 84.17 10.69 85.56 10.53 in Austria

Control Group 84.41 14.92 86.42 9.14 84.41 12.15 85.08 10.79

Total by Condition 85.67 12.62 87.11 9.45 84.61 10.52

4.2.4 Results: L1 German Sentence Naming

Overall accuracy on the German Sentence Naming task is given in Table 50. The one- way ANOVA revealed no main effect of Group (F(2, 72) = 1.32, p = .273, partial η² = .035), because the groups did not differ significantly in terms of accuracy on this task. All groups were highly accurate at naming the images in their L1 German, with overall means for all three groups at 96% or above.

139

Table 50. Overall accuracy on German Sentence Naming in percentages

M SD

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol 96.92 2.13

South Tyroleans in Austria 97.94 2.48

Control Group 97.27 2.06

Overall Accuracy 97.39 2.24

Following all filler sentences (n = 24), a comprehension question was presented to participants, for which they had to have read and understood the sentence in order to answer correctly with YES or NO. Results of accuracy on these comprehension questions is provided in

Table 51. Participants had a mean accuracy percentage of above 77% indicating that they were reading and understanding the sentences in their L1 German.

Table 51. Comprehension Question Accuracy in L1 German (in percentages)

M SD Range

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol 77.89 8.46 62.50 – 95.80

South Tyroleans in Austria 81.01 8.26 66.70 – 91.70

Control Group 80.09 6.77 62.50 – 91.70

Total Accuracy 79.72 7.82 62.50 – 95.80

140

Table 52. Naming times by group for High-Constraint sentences in German Sentence Naming in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol 788 134 842 146 778 142 803 128

South Tyroleans in Austria 657 100 668 98 652 98 659 94

Control Group 681 99 702 97 672 123 685 100

Total by Condition 706 123 733 135 698 132

Table 53. Naming times by group for Low-Constraint sentences in German Sentence Naming in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol 899 159 882 162 863 149 881 150

South Tyroleans in Austria 739 103 742 82 727 116 736 96

Control Group 739 89 758 96 732 99 743 84

Total by Condition 788 139 791 130 770 135

Naming time data for the German Sentence Naming task are given in two tables: Table

52 shows naming times for High-Constraint sentences and Table 53 shows naming times for

Low-Constraint sentences. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Group (F1(2, 72) = 13.21, p1

< .001, partial η² = .268; F2(2, 138) = 242.02, p2 < .001, partial η² = .778). Planned comparisons revealed that the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol (M = 842, SD = 136) were overall significantly

141 slower to respond than the South Tyroleans in Austria (M = 697, SD = 90; p1 < .001; p2 < .001) or the Control Group (M = 714, SD = 90; p1 < .001; p2 < .001). The South Tyroleans in Austria were significantly faster than the Control Group in the by-item, but not the by-participant analysis (p1 = .576; p2 = .020). There was a main effect of Constraint (F1(1, 72) = 121.18, p1 <

.001, partial η² = .627; F2(1, 69) = 70.87, p2 < .001, partial η² = .507), with images in the High-

Constraint sentences (M = 716) named faster overall than in the Low-Constraint sentences (M =

787). There was a main effect of Condition in the by-participant analysis that was not significant in the by-item analysis (F1(2, 144) = 11.45, p1 < .001, partial η² = .137; F2(2, 69) = 0.94, p2 =

.395, partial η² = .027). Planned comparisons revealed differences between all Conditions.

Images in the Congruent condition (M = 751) were named significantly faster than images in the

Incongruent condition in the by-participant analysis (M = 765; p1 = .014; p2 = .307). Images in the Neuter condition (M = 737) were named significantly faster than those in the Congruent (p1 =

.036; p2 = .786) and Incongruent (p1 < .001; p2 = .198) conditions in the by-participant analyses.

The ANOVA revealed no significant interactions: Constraint x Group (F1(2, 72) = 1.11, p1 =

.336, partial η² = .030; F2(1.724, 118.970) = 1.61, p2 = .203, partial η² = .023); Condition x

Group (F1(4, 144) = 0.90, p1 = .465, partial η² = .024; F2(4, 138) = 1.38, p2 = .245, partial η² =

.038); Constraint x Condition (F1(2, 144) = 2.52, p1 = .084, partial η² = .034; F2(2, 69) = 0.71, p2

= .494, partial η² = .020); Constraint x Condition x Group (F1(4, 144) = 1.74, p1 = .144, partial η²

= .046; F2(4, 138) = 0.39, p2 = .814, partial η² = .011).

4.2.5 Results: L2 Italian Sentence Naming

Overall accuracy on the Italian Sentence Naming task is given in Table 54. The one-way

ANOVA revealed no main effect of Group (F(1, 46) = 0.75, p = .391, partial η² = .016), because the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of accuracy on this task. Additionally,

142 although accuracy on the L2 Italian Sentence Naming task (M = 87.64) was lower than on the L1

German Sentence Naming task (M = 97.39), participants were still above 87% accurate, on average, in their L2 Italian.

Table 54. Overall accuracy on Italian Sentence Naming in percentages

M SD

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol 88.71 6.95

South Tyroleans in Austria 86.67 9.13

Total by Condition 87.64 8.14

Table 55. Participants had a mean accuracy percentage of above 83% indicating that they were reading and understanding the sentences in their L2 Italian.

Table 55. Comprehension Question Accuracy in L2 Italian (in percentages)

M SD Range

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol 84.24 7.00 70.80 – 95.80

South Tyroleans in Austria 82.50 11.97 58.30 – 95.80

Total Overall Accuracy 83.34 9.84 58.30 – 95.80

143

Table 56. Naming times by group for High-Constraint sentences in Italian Sentence Naming in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans 1024 220 1056 245 1011 297 1031 227 in South Tyrol

South Tyroleans 856 177 925 166 855 227 879 167 in Austria

Total by Condition 937 214 988 216 930 272

Table 57. Naming times by group for Low-Constraint sentences in Italian Sentence Naming in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol 1086 215 1138 218 1095 230 1106 203

South Tyroleans in Austria 1034 233 1033 215 1005 219 1024 204

Total by Condition 1059 224 1083 220 1048 227

Naming time data for the Italian Sentence Naming are given in Table 56 for High-

Constraint sentences and in Table 57 for Low-Constraint sentences. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Group (F1(1, 46) = 4.71, p1 = .035, partial η² = .093; F2(1, 69) = 61.50, p2 < .001, partial η² = .471). Planned comparisons revealed that the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol (M =

144

1068, SD = 199) were overall significantly slower to respond than the South Tyroleans in

Austria (M = 951, SD = 174). There was a main effect of Constraint (F1(1, 46) = 25.91, p1 <

.001, partial η² = .360; F2(1, 69) = 31.71, p2 < .001, partial η² = .315), with images in the High-

Constraint sentences (M = 955) named faster overall than those in the Low-Constraint sentences

(M = 1065). There was a main effect of Condition in the by-participant analysis that was not significant in the by-item analysis (F1(2, 92) = 3.25, p1 < .043, partial η² = .066; F2(2, 69) = 0.60, p2 = .551, partial η² = .017). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Congruent condition (M = 1000) were named significantly faster than images in the Incongruent condition in the by-participant analysis (M = 1038; p1 = .050; p2 = .654). Images in the Neuter condition

(M = 991) were named significantly faster than those in the Incongruent condition in the by- participant analysis (p1 = .012; p2 = .279). There was no significant difference in naming times between the Congruent and the Neuter condition (p1 = .693; p2 = .524). The ANOVA revealed no significant interactions: Constraint x Group (F1(1, 46) = 2.571, p1 = .115, partial η² = .053; F2(1,

69) = 1.36, p2 = .248, partial η² = .019); Condition x Group (F1(2, 92) = 0.06, p1 = .941, partial η²

= .001; F2(2, 69) = 0.40, p2 = .670, partial η² = .012); Constraint x Condition (F1(2, 92) = 0.46, p1 = .636, partial η² = .010; F2(2, 69) = 0.11, p2 = .897, partial η² = .003); Constraint x Condition x Group (F1(2, 92) = 1.19, p1 = .308, partial η² = .025; F2(2, 69) = 0.70, p2 = .500, partial η² =

.020).

4.2.6 Summary of Experiment 2a Results

As in Experiment 1a, the overall naming time results will be presented first. Table 58 shows performance of the two South Tyrolean groups by task (the Control Group is not included here) and indicates which group was faster overall each time. Recall that groups were well matched with regard to accuracy, working memory, self-ratings in L1 and L2, and age of

145 acquisition of Italian. The main difference between these two groups was the language environment and, in turn, participants’ language use patterns: the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol were tested in a bilingual environment where they spoke less L1 German and more L2 Italian compared to the South Tyroleans in Austria, who were tested in the L1 German environment. In both the L1 German and L2 Italian Sentence Naming tasks the South Tyroleans in Austria named images faster overall than the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol. These results differ from

Experiment 1a, in that the pattern of results does not change based on language (L1 German or

L2 Italian). In Experiment 1a, the South Tyroleans in Austria were faster to name images in the

L1 German (except immediately following L2 Italian naming), but slower in the L2 Italian.

Table 58. Overall naming times by group in Experiment 2a

Sentence Naming Naming Times

L1 German South Tyroleans in Austria < South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol

L2 Italian South Tyroleans in Austria < South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol

Moving now to the results showing difference between conditions, Table 59 provides a summary of results for the two Sentence Naming tasks completed in Experiment 2a. As in

Experiment 1, two effects are mentioned: the “gender-congruency effect” and the “neuter effect.”

The gender-congruency effect is present whenever significant differences in naming times were observed between the Congruent and Incongruent conditions. The neuter effect is present whenever significant differences in naming times were observed between the Neuter condition

146 and the Congruent and/or Incongruent conditions. Because no Condition x Constraint interactions were present, indicating that Constraint did not affect the pattern of results, Table 59 has been collapsed Constraints under one column. Additionally, as there were no Group x

Condition interactions, meaning that all groups performed similarly on all tasks, the results shown in the table are valid for all three groups in the L1 German Sentence Naming task and for both groups on the L2 Italian Sentence Naming task. In the L1 German results we see the presence of the neuter effect, showing that images in the Neuter condition were named significantly faster than those in the Congruent and Incongruent conditions. The gender- congruency effect is also present and is in the predicted direction (images in the Congruent condition are named significantly faster than those in the Incongruent condition). However, as there were no significant Condition x Group interactions, all observed effects are also present in the Control Group. As the Control Group had no knowledge of Italian, this suggests that these effects are being driven by something other than influence from the L2 Italian gender system.

Additionally, the lack of a significant Condition x Group interaction shows that the two South

Tyrolean groups did not differ from one another due to influence of their language environment

(bilingual South Tyrol vs. L1 German-dominant Austria).

147

Table 59. Summary of results for Experiment 2a

Task Gender-Congruency Effect Neuter Effect

High- & Low-Constraint High- & Low-Constraint

Sentences Sentences

German Sentence Present Present

Naming Congruent < Incongruent Neuter < Congruent &

Incongruent

Italian Sentence Present Present

Naming Congruent < Incongruent Neuter < Incongruent

In the L2 Italian results we see a similar pattern showing that both effects are present: the gender-congruency effect goes in the predicted direction (images in the Congruent condition are named significantly faster than those in the Incongruent condition); in the neuter effect images in the Neuter condition are named significantly faster than those in the Incongruent condition, but there is no significant difference between images in the Neuter and Congruent conditions. The lack of a significant Condition x Group interaction shows that the two South Tyrolean groups did not differ from one another due to influence of their language environment (bilingual South

Tyrol vs. L1 German-dominant Austria).

148

4.3 Methods: Experiment 2b

4.3.1 Participants

As in Experiment 1b, participants were recruited and tested in two large cities in Austria.

All participants were between 18-40 years old, were native speakers of German and all considered themselves to be dominant in German. No simultaneous bilinguals of any language combination were included. This group, known hereafter as Late L2 Italian Speakers, was tested in either Salzburg or Vienna and spoke Italian as a second language. All participants were raised in Austria or Germany in German-speaking households and began learning Italian around the age of 14 years old. In addition to Italian, all participants in this group reported speaking English as an additional L2 and 17 participants reported speaking an Austrian or German dialect of German in addition to Standard German. A total of 21 participants were tested, with one excluded due to being a simultaneous German-Slovenian bilingual, leaving a total of 20 participants (1 male, 19 female).18 All participants provided written consent prior to taking part in the study and participation was voluntary. Participants were paid 7 Euro/hour for their participation and received payment following each of the two experimental sessions.

In addition to the main experimental tasks, participants completed the same series of supplementary tasks as in Experiment 2a, which were designed to measure individual variables, such as language proficiency, language background, working memory, and inhibitory control.

Results from a selection of these tasks are presented in Table 60. A description of each supplementary task is provided in Section 3.1.3.1 or in Section 4.1.3.1. General biographical information was obtained via a Language Background Questionnaire.

18 Thirteen of the participants in this group also participated in Experiment 1. To avoid effects due to priming from Experiment 1, participants had nearly three weeks between the conclusion of Experiment 1 and the start of Experiment 2 (M = 32.15 days, SD = 7.74, Range = 18-45). 149

Table 60. Biographical information for Experiment 2b participants

M (SD)

Age (years) 24.20 (5.17)

Italian Cloze Test (%) 59.89 (14.23)

English Proficiency Test (%) 68.54 (17.27)

Age of first exposure to L2 14.58 (3.23)

Verbal Fluency Score (L1 total) 112.85 (18.63)

Verbal Fluency Score (L2 total) 69.40 (24.18)

Operation Span Score (total 50.70 (18.01) possible: 75)

Flanker Effect Score 44.96 (31.89)

Days between Sessions 8.45 (3.44)

As part of the Language Background Questionnaire, participants were asked to rate their language abilities on a variety of measures for both L1 German and L2 Italian on a scale of 1

(least like a native speaker) to 10 (most like a native speaker). Results for both L1 German and

L2 Italian are reported in Table 61. Mean ratings show that participants rated their native language ability between 9.5 and 10 on the 10-point scale, indicating high proficiency in their L1

German. Participants rated their L2 Italian ability between 7.20 and 8.35, indicating that they were less dominant in their L2 Italian, but still considered themselves to be highly proficient speakers.

150

Table 61. Experiment 2b: Participant self-ratings in L1 German and L2 Italian

Language L1 German L2 Italian

M SD M SD

Speaking 9.95 0.22 7.20 1.64

Reading 9.95 0.22 7.90 1.33

Writing 9.80 0.41 7.20 1.70

Comprehension 10.00 0.00 8.35 1.60

Grammar 9.55 0.60 8.05 1.79

Vocabulary 9.85 0.37 7.10 1.77

Overall 10.00 0.00 7.50 1.67

Participants were asked to self-report their general language use by percentage in the environment in which they were currently living (i.e., in Austria). Though 16 of 20 participants reported speaking a German or Austrian dialect, for the purposes of filling out the Language

Background Questionnaire they were all instructed to consider the term “German” to include both the standard version of the language as well as their dialect. Table 62 displays percentages of L1 German use, L2 Italian use, and use of languages other than L1 or L2 (“Other”). Though participants were using their L1 German the majority of the time, they were speaking their L2 nearly 20% of the time, despite living in an L1-dominant environment (i.e., Austria).

151

Table 62. Experiment 2b: Reported language usage in percentages Italian

Late L2 Italian Speakers

M SD

L1 German 74.00 13.14

L2 Italian 18.00 8.34

Other 8.00 12.40

4.3.2 Materials

The materials used in Experiment 2b are identical to those used in Experiment 2a.

4.3.3 Procedure

The testing procedure in Experiment 2b was identical to Experiment 2a

4.4 Results: Experiment 2b

4.4.1 Data Analysis

The Sentence Naming tasks were transcribed and coded in the same way as in

Experiment 2a. Table 63 provides the percentages for the amount of data eliminated due to accuracy-based (“Acc”) and response time-based (“RT”) factors for each task.

152

Table 63. Data eliminated from each task (percentage of items removed from total number of items possible)

% of data eliminated

Late L2 Italian Speakers

Language Task Acc RT

L1 German Sentence Naming 22.01 2.67

L2 Italian Sentence Naming 27.29 4.87

Results will be reported first for the L2 Italian Determiner+Noun picture naming task, to demonstrate L2 gender accuracy by group. The purpose of this task was identical to that outlined in Experiment 2a. Following the results from the L2 Italian Determiner+Noun naming task, results are given for the L1 German Sentence Naming and L2 Italian Sentence Naming tasks. For each task, overall accuracy will be reported first, followed by Comprehension Question accuracy, followed by the naming time data. Descriptions of the analyses used for both accuracy and naming times for both tasks are outlined below.

Overall accuracy was derived in the identical fashion as in Experiment 2a. For both the

German Sentence Naming and Italian Sentence Naming, mean accuracy percentages and standard deviations are reported.

Naming times for the Sentence Naming tasks were analyzed by conducting a 2 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA using naming times (in milliseconds) as the dependent variable to test for differences between experimental conditions. Both participants (F1) and items (F2) were considered as random factors. In the by-participant analysis, Constraint (High vs. Low) and

Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) were entered as within-subjects variables. In

153 the by-item analysis, Constraint (High vs. Low) was entered as a within-items variable and

Condition (Congruent vs. Incongruent vs. Neuter) was entered as a between-items variable.

Finally, in order to ensure that the gender (masculine vs. feminine) of the targets in L2

German and L2 Italian Sentence Naming tasks. Results showed no significant Condition x L2

Gender interactions, indicating that the L2 gender of the images to be named was not driving the results. L2 Gender will therefore not be considered any further.

4.4.2 Predictions

If speakers experience cross-language interaction at the grammatical level during language production in either the L1 German or in the L2 Italian sentence naming tasks, we should find either a gender-congruency effect or a neuter effect. Such effects would appear as a main effect of Condition, with significant differences in naming times between Congruent and

154 interaction, indicating that the gender-congruency effect is only present, for example, in the

High-Constraint sentences but absent in the Low-Constraint sentences.

4.4.3 Results: L1 Gender Accuracy

During Session 2, participants completed a Determiner+Noun Picture Naming task in L2

Italian in order to measure their knowledge in the L2 of the target words and their genders that appeared on the Sentence Naming tasks. Accuracy is reported in Table 64 with mean scores and standard deviations given based on the percentage correct out of a possible 24 items per

Condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, Neuter). Importantly, the high mean percentages across all three conditions – all at 77% and above - indicate that this group was accurate at naming both target items and their genders.

Table 64. Accuracy on Determiner+Noun L2 Italian Picture Naming Task in percentages

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 81.25 16.25 83.75 18.33 77.71 15.66 80.90 16.18

4.4.4 Results: L2 German Sentence Naming

Overall accuracy on the German Sentence Naming task is provided in Table 65.

Participants performed close to ceiling on this task.

155

Table 65. Overall accuracy on German Sentence Naming in percentages

M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 98.26 1.74

Table 66. Participants had a mean accuracy percentage of above 81% indicating that they were reading and understanding the sentences in their L1 German.

Table 66. Comprehension Question Accuracy in L1 German (in percentages)

M SD Range

Late L2 Italian Speakers 81.45 9.02 58.30 – 91.70

Table 67. Naming times for High-Constraint sentences in German Sentence Naming in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 693 153 682 148 654 137 676 139

156

Table 68. Naming times for Low-Constraint sentences in German Sentence Naming in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 754 120 746 130 742 132 748 121

Naming time data for the German Sentence Naming task are given in Table 67 for High-

Constraint sentences and in Table 68 for Low-Constraint sentences. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Constraint (F1(1, 19) = 30.50, p1 < .001, partial η² = .616; F2(1, 69) = 18.78, p2 <

.001, partial η² = .214), with images in the High-Constraint sentences (M = 676) named faster overall than in the Low-Constraint sentences (M = 748). There was a main effect of Condition in the by-participant analysis that was not significant in the by-item analysis (F1(2, 38) = 3.77, p1 =

.032, partial η² = .166; F2(2, 69) = 0.55, p2 = .577, partial η² = .016). Planned comparisons revealed that images in the Neuter (M = 698) condition were named significantly faster than nouns in the Congruent (M = 724) condition in the by-participant analysis (p1 = .024; p2 = .345).

There were no significant differences in naming times between the Neuter and Incongruent (M =

714; p1 = .089; p2 = .932) conditions, nor between the Congruent and Incongruent conditions (p1

= .285; p2 = .390). This neuter effect is very similar to the neuter effect observed in Experiment

2a. However, because the effect in Experiment 2a was also found in the Control Group, who

157 spoke no Italian, the effect is not attributable to influence of Italian in either Experiment 1a or in

Experiment 1b.

There was no Constraint x Condition interaction (F1(2, 38) = 0.57, p1 = .569, partial η² =

.029; F2(2, 69) = 0.05, p2 = .995, partial η² = .000).

4.4.5 Results: L2 Italian Sentence Naming

Overall accuracy on the Italian Sentence Naming task is provided in Table 69. Although accuracy on the L2 Italian Sentence Naming task (M = 80.56) was lower than on the L1 German

Sentence Naming task (M = 98.26), participants were still above 80% accurate on average in their L2 Italian.

Table 69. Accuracy on Italian Sentence Naming for High-Constraint sentences in percentages

M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 80.56 15.93

Table 70. Participants had a mean accuracy percentage of above 83% indicating that they were reading and understanding the sentences in their L2 Italian.

158

Table 70. Comprehension Question Accuracy in L2 Italian (in percentages)

M SD Range

Late L2 Italian Speakers 83.75 9.83 62.50 – 95.80

Table 71. Naming times for High-Constraint sentences in Italian Sentence Naming in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 940 154 927 123 905 234 939 187

Table 72. Naming times for Low-Constraint sentences in Italian Sentence Naming in milliseconds

Congruent Incongruent Neuter Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Late L2 Italian Speakers 1069 196 1050 173 1034 2010 1050 174

Naming time data for the Italian Sentence Naming are given in Table 71 for High-

Constraint sentences and in Table 72 for Low-Constraint sentences. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Constraint (F1(1, 19) = 14.80, p1 = .001, partial η² = .438; F2(1, 69) = 22.47, p2 <

.001, partial η² = .246), with images in the High-Constraint sentences (M = 939) named faster overall than in the Low-Constraint sentences (M = 1050). There was no main effect of Condition

(F1(2, 38) = 3.01, p1 = .061, partial η² = .137; F2(2, 69) = 0.35, p2 = .710, partial η² = .010), nor

159 was there a significant Constraint x Condition interaction (F1(2, 38) = 0.17, p1 = .843, partial η²

= .009; F2(2, 69) = 0.01, p2 = .994, partial η² = .000).

4.4.6 Summary of Experiment 2b Results

Table 73 provides a summary of results for the two Sentence Naming tasks completed in

Experiment 2b. As in Experiment 2a, two effects are mentioned: the “gender-congruency effect” and the “neuter effect.” The gender-congruency effect is present whenever significant differences in naming times are observed between the Congruent and Incongruent conditions. The neuter effect is present whenever significant differences in naming times are observed between the

Neuter condition and the Congruent and/or Incongruent conditions. Because no Condition x

Constraint interactions were present, indicating that the pattern of results did not differ between constraints, Table 73 has been collapsed with High and Low Constraint under one column. In the

L1 German results we see the presence of the neuter effect, showing that images in the Neuter condition are named significantly faster than those in the Congruent condition, but there is no significant difference in naming times between images in the Neuter and Incongruent conditions

(note that this effect is similar to the effect found in Experiment 2a, in which the Control Group also showed the effect). The gender-congruency effect is absent in the L1 German Sentence

Naming data. These results differ from those obtained in Experiment 2a, in which a gender- congruency effect (Congruent < Incongruent) was observed and the neuter effect showed that images in the Neuter condition were named significantly faster than both images in Congruent and Incongruent conditions.

160

Table 73. Summary of results for Experiment 2b

Task Gender-Congruency Effect Neuter Effect

High- & Low-Constraint High- & Low-Constraint

Sentences Sentences

German Sentence Absent Present

Naming Neuter < Congruent

Italian Sentence Absent Absent

Naming

In the L2 Italian results there is neither a neuter effect nor a gender-congruency effect present. This contrasts with the results from Experiment 2a, in which both a gender-congruency effect (Congruent < Incongruent) and a neuter effect (Neuter < Incongruent) were observed.

4.5 Discussion of Experiment 2

This chapter consisted of two experiments, identical in their design, carried out with speakers from different populations. In Experiment 2a, two experimental groups (South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol and South Tyroleans in Austria) of L1 German-L2 Italian speakers and a Control Group of L1 German-L2 English speakers named images embedded in sentences. The two South Tyrolean groups were matched in terms of accuracy in L2 picture naming, working memory, and age of acquisition, but differed on two important measures: 1) language environment (i.e., whether they were living in bilingual South Tyrol or L1 German-dominant

Austria); and 2) language use patterns (i.e., the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol used more L2

Italian and less L1 German than the South Tyroleans in Austria). In Experiment 2b, a group of 161 late-learning L1 German-L2 Italian speakers living in the L1 German environment (Austria) completed the same experiment. The major differences between this group and the two South

Tyrolean groups in Experiment 2a were: 1) the age at which they began learning L2 Italian; and

2) the environment in which they learned the L2 Italian.

Experiment 2 employed picture naming tasks, however in contrast to Experiment 1 in which images were named in isolation, in Experiment 2 images were embedded into high- or low-constraint sentences. This type of task has been used previously to investigate the cognate effect at the lexical level (e.g., Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Starreveld et al., 2013), but in the current study instead of manipulating cognate status, gender congruency was manipulated. In this way, this task builds upon the naming in isolation tasks of Experiment 1 and allows us to expand our knowledge about when gender systems interact during language production. Just as in

Experiment 1, participants in Experiment 2 completed the sentence naming tasks in both L1

German and L2 Italian in order to measure the potential cross-linguistic influence of gender systems in both directions (i.e., L1L2 and L2L1).

The first goal of Experiment 2 was to see whether a gender-congruency effect is observed when participants name images in a sentence context in L2 Italian. Studies with cognates have shown that a cognate effect is present when naming embedded images in an L2 language-specific context and that this effect is stronger in low-constraint sentences (e.g., Starreveld et al., 2013), suggesting that a bilingual’s two languages are co-activated even when reading sentences in a single language. Table 74 summarizes the results of both Experiment 2a and Experiment 2b for the sentence naming task in L2 Italian. In Experiment 2a, a gender-congruency effect was present in both the High- and Low-Constraint sentences, indicating that results did not differ by constraint as they did in previous studies (e.g., Starreveld et al., 2013). This is also true of the

162 neuter effect, which was present in both High- and Low-Constraint sentences in Experiment 2a.

Here, Neuter images patterned with Congruent images and were both named significantly faster than Incongruent images. This mirrors the effect found in Experiment 1a and is also in line with previous research (Klassen, 2016). The finding that neither the gender-congruency effect nor the neuter effect differed by constraint, differs from the cognate-effect observed in studies using a similar methodology (e.g., Starreveld et al., 2013), which showed that the (cognate) effect was larger in low-constraint sentences. This difference between studies looking cognate effects and the current study looking at gender-congruency effects suggests that cross-language interaction at the grammatical level is not as susceptible to language context (here, in terms of predictable vs. non-predictable images) as is the interaction at the lexical level. In other words, when interaction occurs at the grammatical (here, gender) level, it is present regardless of how predictable an image is.

In Experiment 2b, no gender-congruency or neuter effects were observed in either High- or Low-Constraint L2 Italian sentences among the Late L2 Italian speakers. The lack of any effects in this group contrasts with the findings from Experiment 2a, in which both a gender- congruency effect and a neuter-congruency effect were observed while naming images in the L2

Italian. Experiment 2 was conducted in order to investigate whether the gender-congruency effect, which has been found previously when speakers named images in isolation, would mirror results found with the cognate effect, and also surface when speakers name images embedded into sentence context. Although this was the case with the South Tyroleans in Experiment 2a, who experienced measurable gender influence from the L1 German gender system, it was not true of the Late L2 Italian group. Recall that the South Tyroleans groups differed from the Late

L2 Italian group in their language background, reported levels of current L2 use, and L2 learning

163 environment but were similar on their L2 naming accuracy, performance on an L2 verbal fluency task, and overall Italian proficiency (measured by a proficiency test and self-ratings). Previous studies that have observed effects of cross-language interaction using the same methodology as

Experiment 2 (e.g., Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Starreveld et al., 2013) were manipulating cognate status instead of gender congruency, which may indicate that the cross-language interaction at the lexical level differs from that experienced at the grammatical level in this Late L2 Italian population. However, this overall difference in results observed between the South Tyrolean groups (Experiments 1a & 2a), who show evidence of gender-congruency effects, and the Late

L2 Italian group (Experiments 1b & 2b), who shows no effects of gender-congruency, suggests that the Late L2 Italian group experiences less influence from the L1 German gender system while processing in the L2 Italian than the South Tyrolean groups, regardless of whether or not they are naming images in isolation or in sentence context. A possible explanation for the lack of effects in the Late L2 Italian group, as put forth in the discussion of Experiment 1, is that the

Late L2 Italian group was more compartmentalized in their overall language use patterns as compared to populations tested in previous studies. Because they were learning the L2 Italian in a classroom setting and otherwise living and communicating nearly exclusively in an L1 environment, it may be the case that they are better able to inhibit the L1 in the limited situations

(e.g., a classroom or lab setting) in which they are expected to use their L2 Italian.

164

Table 74. Summary of Experiment 2a and 2b results for L2 Italian sentence naming task

Exp 2a Exp 2b

High Low High Low

Gen-Cong Effect Present Present Absent Absent

Neuter Effect Present Present Absent Absent

The second goal of Experiment 2 was to see whether a gender-congruency effect is observed when participants are naming images in a sentence context in L1 German. Studies with cognates have shown that a cognate effect is present when naming embedded images in a low- constraint L1 language-specific context, though the effect may disappear in high-constraint sentences (e.g., Starreveld et al., 2013). Table 75 summarizes the results for all L1 German tasks completed in Experiment 2. The gender-congruency effect found in Experiment 2a was found in all groups, including the Control Group, but was absent in Experiment 2b. The neuter effect was found in all groups, including the Control Group (although the neuter effect differed slightly between Experiments 2a and 2b). Because any effects found were also present in the Control

Group, who knew no Italian, it is difficult to attribute these effects to influence from L2 Italian.

As such, these cannot be considered to be effects of gender-congruency as observed in previous studies. These results are marked in the table with an asterisk to remind the reader of this fact.

165

Table 75. Summary of Experiment 2a and 2b results for L1 German sentence naming

Exp 2a Exp 2b

High Low High Low

Gen-Cong Effect Present* Present* Absent Absent

Neuter Effect Present* Present* Present* Present*

Finally, just as in Experiment 1, while there were no group differences between the two

South Tyrolean groups with regard to the gender-congruency effect, differences between groups were observed with regard to lexical access, as measured by overall naming times in the picture naming tasks and performance on a verbal fluency task. For example, overall naming times differed between the South Tyrolean groups in Experiment 2a on both the L1 and L2 sentence naming tasks with the South Tyroleans in Austria naming pictures significantly faster than the

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol in both languages. In contrast to Experiment 1, in Experiment 2 the South Tyroleans in Austria were faster to respond than the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol on both the L1 German and the L2 Italian tasks. Relatedly, performance on the verbal fluency task showed differences between these two groups in L1 German naming, as the South Tyroleans in

Austria named more words overall than the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol. These differences between groups that differ in language environment pattern with results of previous studies which have found an impact of language environment on lexical access (e.g., Baus et al., 2013;

Linck et al., 2009). In addition, in Experiment 2a there was also a lack of difference between

High- and Low-Constraint sentences because there was a significant gender-congruency effect in

L2 Italian regardless of constraint, in contrast to previous studies investigating cognate naming times in a sentence context, where effects are stronger in low-constraint than in high-constraint

166 sentences (e.g., Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Starreveld et al., 2013). This combination of findings strengthens the possibility raised in Experiment 1 that language environment and language use patterns - and potentially also differences in language context (i.e., constraint) - have an impact on lexical access in general, but do not affect language interaction at the grammatical level.

167

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions

5.1 Introduction

At its onset, this dissertation had two main goals. The first goal was to better understand when, how, and under what circumstances languages interact, particularly at the grammatical level, in bilingual speakers from different populations. The second goal was to use these bilinguals to investigate the mechanisms involved in language production in order to shed light on both monolingual and multilingual language production processes. In this section, I summarize the relevant data obtained throughout the current study as a basis for drawing conclusions.

5.2 Summary of Important Results

5.2.1 Role of Environment on Cross-Language Interaction

To determine the role that language environment plays on the amount of cross-language interaction present in bilingual speakers, the current study tested and compared two groups of L1

German-L2 Italian bilinguals from South Tyrol (Experiments 1a and 2a). These groups were well matched on a number of factors: their language background (i.e., all grew up in bilingual South

Tyrol); the age at which they began learning the L2 Italian; language dominance; L2 proficiency

(as measured by a number of subjective and objective tasks); accuracy on L2 Italian naming tasks; and performance on cognitive tasks (measuring working memory and inhibitory control).

However, these groups differed on one important factor: their current language environment. The

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol were living in bilingual Bolzano and using significantly more L2

Italian and less L1 German as compared to the South Tyroleans in Austria, who were living in

L1-dominant Austria.

168

To measure the amount of cross-language interaction experienced by these groups during language production, the current study investigated the presence of the gender-congruency effect

(i.e., the difference in naming times between Congruent and Incongruent images) while speakers named images in the L1 German and L2 Italian. If language environment affects the amount of interaction in these speakers, one would expect to see differences in the presence of the gender- congruency effect between groups. However, results showed no such differences in either

Experiment 1a or in Experiment 2a, indicating that language environment had no measurable impact on the amount of cross-language interaction experienced by these speakers at the grammatical level in either their L1 German or their L2 Italian.

Although language environment did not affect the amount of interaction experienced by these bilinguals at the grammatical level, it did have an impact on lexical access. Overall naming times (on the picture naming tasks) differed between groups in both Experiment 1a and

Experiment 2a. In Experiment 1, the South Tyroleans in Austria had an advantage when naming in L1 German, whereas the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol had an advantage when naming in the L2 Italian. In Experiment 2, the South Tyroleans in Austria had the advantage in naming in both the L1 German and the L2 Italian. In addition to differences in overall naming times, the effect of language environment was also present when naming items in a verbal fluency task in the L1 German. The South Tyroleans in Austria outperformed (i.e., named more words) the

South Tyroleans in South Tyrol in both Experiments 1a and 2a, despite the fact that German was the native language of both groups.

5.2.2 Role of Language Background on Cross-Language Interaction

In addition to testing the two groups of South Tyroleans, who acquired their L2 Italian early in life (around age six) in a bilingual setting, this dissertation also tested a third group of L1

169

German-L2 Italian speakers (Experiments 1b and 2b). The Late L2 Italian group learned their L2

Italian after childhood (around age 14) primarily in a language classroom setting in an L1- dominant environment (Germany and Austria) and were currently living in Austria. Their self- reported language use patterns indicated that they fell somewhere between the percentages reported by the two South Tyrolean groups: they spoke more L1 German than the South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol, but less L1 German than the South Tyroleans in Austria; they spoke more L2 Italian than the South Tyroleans in Austria, but less L2 Italian than the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol. This Late L2 Italian group was also highly proficient in the L2 Italian and demonstrated high accuracy on the naming tasks.

The Late L2 Italian group showed no measurable gender-congruency effects while naming in their L2 Italian in either Experiment 1b or 2b. This group also showed no gender- congruency effect while naming in their L1 German in either Experiment 1b or 2b. Although they did have measurable neuter effects while naming in their L1 German, these effects were also found in the Control Group in Experiments 1a and 2a, indicating that these results were driven by something other than influence from L2 Italian.

The lack of gender-congruency effects in the Late L2 Italian group is striking when compared to the results obtained from the South Tyrolean groups in the current study, as well as to previous studies which have tested similar populations of late-learning bilinguals and have found gender-congruency effects (e.g., Klassen, 2016; Salamoura & Williams, 2007). This lack of any measurable effects in the Late L2 Italian group demonstrates that this group does not experience cross-language interaction between gender systems either while naming in the L1

German or the L2 Italian. Whether this is due to their language background, language use

170 patterns, or current language environment or some combination of all three factors remains unclear. For further discussion of this finding, see Section 5.5.1.

5.2.3 Naming Context (Bare Noun vs. Determiner+Noun Naming)

To help shed light on exactly when grammatical information is accessed during language production, participants in Experiments 1a and 1b were asked to complete a series of picture naming experiments in which they either named images along with their gender-specific definite article (i.e., Determiner+Noun condition) or without (i.e., Bare Noun condition) in both their L1

German and their L2 Italian. Specifically, by comparing performance between these conditions, it is possible to explore whether gender-congruency effects appeared in both conditions or only in the Determiner+Noun condition, in which gender agreement is explicitly required by the context. The answer to this question can help address open questions surrounding L1 language production models.

Results for naming in the L2 Italian showed a gender-congruency effect, in which

Congruent images were named faster than Incongruent images, and a neuter effect, in which

Neuter images were named faster than Incongruent and/or Congruent images, in the

Determiner+Noun condition, but not in the Bare Noun condition for South Tyrolean groups in

Experiment 1a. The Late L2 Italian group in Experiment 1b showed no effect in either condition

(see previous section for more information about this group and their lack of gender-congruency effects). Results for naming in the L1 German showed a gender-congruency effect only when participants named images following completion of a series of naming tasks in the L2 Italian

(i.e., Determiner+Noun condition, Session 2) for the South Tyrolean groups in Experiment 1a. In addition, neuter effects were found in all three conditions (Bare Noun,

Determiner+Noun/Session 1, and Determiner+Noun/Session 2). The Late L2 Italian group in

171

Experiment 1b showed no gender-congruency effect in the L1 German, but did show neuter effects in the two Determiner+Noun naming conditions in the L2 German (but not in the Bare

Noun condition). However, all of these effects found in the L1 German were also present in the

Control Group, who spoke no Italian, and thus cannot be attributed to influence of Italian.

If we focus on the results from Experiment 1a, the only groups for which a gender- congruency effect was present, we see a clear pattern of results in the L2 Italian: cross-language interaction at the grammatical level occurs only when naming in an explicitly gender-marked context (i.e., Determiner+Noun condition). In the L1 German, no measurable cross-language interaction at the grammatical level is present (recall that the when gender-congruency effects were present, they were also present in the Control Group), indicating that measurable interaction of gender systems is only present when naming in the L2.

5.2.4 Experimental Context

Another aim of the current dissertation was to test the amount of cross-language interaction in two different versions of the picture naming task: one in which participants named images in isolation (Experiment 1), and one in which participants named imaged embedded into

L1 and L2 sentences (Experiment 2). The latter methodology has been used to measure cross- language interaction at the lexical level (by measuring the cognate effect), but never to measure cross-language interaction at the grammatical level (by measuring the gender-congruency effect).

By placing images into sentences, as opposed to showing images in isolation, the language context is more constrained (i.e., speakers must read in either the L1 or the L2). In addition, the current study also manipulated the type of sentences participants read. In low-constraint sentences, the image to be named was not predictable prior to its appearance. In high-constraint sentences, the image to be named was predictable prior to its appearance, allowing participants to

172 not only anticipate what language they would be naming in, but also the exact image they would see and name. The purpose of Experiment 2 was to see if cross-language interaction occurs at the grammatical level, as it has been shown to do at the lexical level, when naming in a sentence context. Furthermore, Experiment 2 investigated whether this interaction changes based on the type of sentence the participant is reading (i.e., High vs. Low Constraint).

Results showed that the speakers in Experiment 2a did indeed experience cross-language interaction at the grammatical level in both L2 Italian and L1 German naming contexts.

However, in the L1 German results, the Control Group also showed the same gender-congruency effect and neuter effect as the South Tyrolean groups, which means that this effect cannot be attributed to influence from Italian. The Late L2 Italian group in Experiment 2b did not show gender-congruency effects in their L2 Italian. In the L1 German there was a neuter effect (similar to the effect found in the Control Group in Experiment 2a, and thus not attributable to Italian influence) but no gender-congruency effect.

Interestingly, when gender-congruency effects were found in Experiment 2, they did not differ by constraint. This finding contrasts with studies that have used the same methodology to measure interaction at the lexical level during production and have found differences in the size of the cognate effect between constraints, particularly with regard to the L1 (e.g., Starreveld et al., 2013). Taken together, the findings from the current study with gender congruency, compared to findings from previous studies with cognates, demonstrate that while cross- language interaction at the grammatical level, specifically with regard to interaction of gender systems, is not affected by the predictability of the image, lexical access is susceptible to the predictability of the image (as evidenced by images in high-constraint sentences being named significantly faster than low-constraint sentences). Furthermore, the results from Experiment 2

173 extend our knowledge of when and under what circumstances cross-language interaction occurs at the grammatical level, by finding gender-congruency effects even when participants are reading exclusively in the L2.

5.3 Conclusions: Cross-Language Interaction

The first primary goal of this dissertation was to explore when, how, and under what circumstances languages interact, particularly at the grammatical level, in bilingual speakers from different populations. Specifically, the current study investigated the extent to which speaker-internal and speaker-external factors like language environment (bilingual South Tyrol vs. L1-dominant Austria), language background (early vs. late learners), experimental context

(naming images in isolation vs. naming images in a sentence context), and language (naming in

L1 German vs. naming in L2 Italian) influence the amount of cross-language interaction these speakers experience at the grammatical level.

The findings of the current study support the following conclusions regarding the presence of cross-language interaction. First, languages interact at the grammatical level when bilinguals name images in their L2. In both Experiment 1 (naming in isolation) and Experiment 2

(naming in sentence context), the South Tyrolean groups showed an effect of gender congruency

(congruent < incongruent) when naming images in the L2 Italian. This complements the many previous studies that have found evidence of a gender-congruency effect when participants are naming images in isolation in their L2 (e.g., Klassen, 2016; Lemhöfer et al., 2008; Salamoura &

Williams, 2007) and is evidence that even when bilinguals are producing language in an L2 context – whether in isolation, as in previous studies and in Experiment 1, or in sentence context, as in Experiment 2, the L1 gender system remains active enough to influence L2 production.

Second, languages interact at the grammatical level not only when bilinguals name images in

174 isolation (Experiment 1), but also when speakers naming images embedded in a L2 sentence context (Experiment 2). This mirrors results obtained in previous studies with cognates, showing that bilinguals experience cross-language interaction at the lexical level when naming images in an L2 sentence context (e.g., Starreveld et al., 2013), and is evidence that the L1 gender system remains active enough to influence L2 production even when bilinguals are processing complete sentences in the L2. Interestingly, the gender-congruency effect found in the L2 sentence naming was present in both high and low-constraint sentences. This is evidence that, in contrast to findings with cognates at the lexical level, semantic predictability does not measurably modulate the influence of the L1 gender system on the L2 during production.

Conversely, the findings of the current study support the following conclusions about when cross-language interaction is not present. First, the current study provides no evidence that languages interact at the grammatical level when bilinguals name images in isolation with just the bare noun (Experiment 1), despite the fact that the same speakers experienced interaction when naming the identical images with the definite article + noun (i.e., Determiner+Noun condition). This finding is predicted by models like WEAVER++ and the Independent Network

Model that assume grammatical gender is only accessed when the context explicitly requires it

(e.g., when naming an image with a gender-specific adjective or determiner) (e.g., Caramazza,

1997; Levelt et al., 1999; Roelofs, 1992). Second, we find no evidence that languages interact at the grammatical level in bilinguals who are late learners of their L2. The Late L2 Italian group did not show any effects of gender congruency in the L2 Italian. However, it is not likely that age of acquisition alone is responsible for the absence of gender-congruency effects in this group, as previous studies have found gender-congruency effects in other populations of late bilinguals

(e.g., Paolieri, Cubelli, et al., 2010). Rather, it is possible that a combination of factors may be

175 responsible for the lack of cross-language interaction at the grammatical level in this group. For a more detailed discussion of possible explanations as to why this group performed differently from the South Tyroleans, see Section 5.5.1.

Third, the current results suggest a final, albeit speculative, conclusion regarding another circumstance under which cross-language interaction between gender systems is absent: when naming in the L1. Here the current data are inconclusive. Gender-congruency and neuter effects were found in the L1 German naming data, however they were always found in the non-Italian speaking Control Group as well as the experimental groups, making it impossible to attribute these effects to the influence of Italian. Therefore, once the assumption is made that these L1 effects are not due to influence from the L2 Italian gender system, we are left with no evidence that the L2 gender system measurably impacts the L1 gender system during language production.

This possibility is discussed further in Section 5.5.3. The idea that the L2 gender system does not influence the L1 gender system is not without precedent. Morales et al. (2011) found that when bilinguals named images in their L1, they only showed a gender-congruency effect for those words that they had just named in their L2. For images that appeared only in the L1 naming task

(i.e., they were only ever named in the L1) there was no effect of gender congruency. This finding, if true, suggests that while the L2 has been shown to influence the L1 at many levels of processing (Dussias & Sagarra, 2007; Hatzidaki et al., 2011; van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002), such influence from the L2 gender system on the L1 gender system is absent.

An additional finding involves the processing of neuter nouns in German, which are technically gender-incongruent between German and Italian, as no neuter category exists in

Italian. In the current dissertation however, Neuter was considered as a separate condition from the Incongruent category, precisely as there is no one-to-one mapping between languages.

176

Results showed that the Neuter condition indeed patterned differently from the Incongruent condition, with participants naming images in the Neuter category significantly faster than those in the Incongruent category and occasionally also faster than those in the Congruent category, in both L1 German19 and L2 Italian naming. These results are similar to those reported in Klassen

(2016), in which naming of images in the Neuter condition patterned with the Congruent condition and were both named significantly faster than images in the Incongruent condition.

Additionally, the current finding answers a question Klassen poses in her conclusion, as to whether neuter effects would also be present in higher-proficiency L2 speakers; results of the current dissertation show that indeed such effects are maintained, even when speakers are highly proficient in the L2. Finally, this finding demonstrates, just as Klassen argues, that not all gender combinations between the L1 and L2 are subject to equal amounts of interference during production. Bilinguals naming images belonging to the Neuter condition, that have no direct competitor in the other language, experience less interference than they do for images in the

Incongruent condition.

Finally, we can conclude based on the results of the current study that while speaker- external factors, such as language environment or predictability of an image to be named, have an influence on lexical access, they do not influence cross-language interaction at the grammatical level. In Experiment 1, gender-congruency effects between the South Tyroleans in

South Tyrol (bilingual environment) and the South Tyroleans in Austria (L1-dominant environment) did not differ significantly on any of the five naming tasks, suggesting that language environment did not affect the amount of interaction between the L1 and L2 gender systems. Overall naming times, however, did differ significantly between groups on the same

19 Recall that in L1 German naming tasks, any effects present – including the neuter effect – were also present in the Control Group who did not speak Italian. 177 five tasks. In Experiment 2, a similar dichotomy emerges between factors that influence lexical and but not grammatical interaction. First, just as in Experiment 1, the gender-congruency effect also did not differ between groups, but overall naming times did. Furthermore, gender- congruency effects did not differ between naming images in low versus high-constraint sentences, indicating that the predictability of a given image did not influence the amount of interaction of the L1 and L2 gender systems. Overall naming times, however, did differ significantly between low and high-constraint sentences (high constraint < low constraint), suggesting that image predictability does affect lexical access more generally.

5.4 Conclusions: L1 Language Production Models

The second main goal of this dissertation was to answer open questions relating to L1 production models’ predictions about the access of grammatical information by testing a bilingual population. In contrast to studies with monolinguals that employed the picture-word interference paradigm, the bilinguals in the current study completed picture naming tasks, in which they named a target image, while the word’s translation in the language not in use acted as a natural, built-in distractor word. Targets and their distractors were manipulated to be either gender-congruent or gender-incongruent and naming times were measured in order to see to what extent the gender of the distractor word was activated when naming the target.

The results from the L1 German data were inconclusive. Because the Control Group pattered with the German-Italian bilingual groups, it is impossible to attribute any effects observed to the influence of the Italian gender system.

However, the L2 Italian results enhance our understanding about the circumstances under which grammatical gender information is accessed. Specifically, the results from Experiment 1, which asked participants to name images both with and without the definite article (i.e.,

178

Determiner+Noun vs. Bare Noun conditions), revealed a gender-congruency effect only when participants named images along with their gender-specific definite article. When they named with the bare noun only, the effect was not present. This finding supports the WEAVER++ and

Independent Network models that state that gender information is only accessed when explicitly required by context (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999; Roelofs, 1992) and is evidence against the Double Selection model (Cubelli et al., 2005), which claims that gender is always accessed regardless of context.

The current study specifically chose German-Italian bilinguals as test subjects because monolingual speakers of Germanic and Romance languages have performed differently in studies investigating the gender-congruency effect. Speakers of Dutch and German have consistently named congruent images faster than incongruent images (e.g., Schriefers, 1993), whereas speakers of Spanish and Italian have consistently named incongruent images faster than congruent images (e.g., Cubelli et al., 2005). Results from the current study show that when a gender-congruency effect is present, it follows the pattern observed in monolinguals speakers of

Germanic languages (i.e., congruent < incongruent) and the pattern observed in other studies looking at the gender-congruency effect in bilinguals (e.g., Bordag, 2004; Paolieri et al., 2010;

Salamoura & Williams, 2007). This finding speaks against the Double Selection model (Cubelli et al., 2005), which predicts the opposite effect (i.e., incongruent < congruent) due to competition during gender selection, and for models that assume gender selection to be a non-competitive process (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999).

Combined, the findings that the gender-congruency effect is present only when computation of gender agreement is required by context and that congruent images are named faster than incongruent images, appear to support the results obtained by studies with

179 monolingual speakers of Germanic languages and therefore models that would predict such results, like WEAVER++ and the Independent Network Model (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999; Roelofs, 1992). What remains unclear is whether this finding holds true for all languages and combinations of languages (in the case of multilinguals), or whether the results of the current study are due to the fact that the L1 of these speakers was German. This open question is discussed further in Section 5.6.3.

5.5 Open Questions

The current dissertation provides new insights into the nature of the cross-language interaction experienced by bilinguals at the grammatical level. However, many open questions remain. Three main questions raised by the data in the current study are listed below.

5.5.1 Why did the Late L2 Italian Speakers Perfrom So Differently from the South

Tyrolean Groups?

The Late L2 Italian group failed to show any gender-congruency effects across L2 Italian naming tasks in Experiments 1 and 2. This result is surprising, as this group more closely resembles the late-learning L2 populations used in previous studies that have explored gender- congruency in bilinguals than the South Tyrolean groups of (relatively) early bilinguals in the present study, who did show gender-congruency effects in the L2 Italian. Specifically, most of the previous research that has observed gender-congruency effects in bilinguals has done so with populations of late-learning, intermediate-to-advanced proficiency speakers (e.g., Bordag &

Pechmann, 2007; Paolieri, Cubelli, et al., 2010; Salamoura & Williams, 2007). In addition, a number of studies have tested such populations while they are living in the L1 environment (e.g.,

Bordag, 2004; Klassen, 2016; Salamoura & Williams, 2007), just like the Late L2 Italian group in the current study. Despite these similarities, the Late L2 Italian groups’ participants in the

180 current study failed to show an effect while completing the same tasks as participants in previous studies have done.

This group – just like the South Tyrolean groups – was made up of highly proficient speakers of L2 Italian, as evidenced by their performance on a variety of L2 Italian proficiency tasks, their high self-ratings of their L2 Italian abilities, and their high accuracy rates in the various L2 picture naming tasks (which included high accuracy in assigning the correct gender).

Furthermore, when naming accuracy was analyzed by condition (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent,

Neuter), there were no significant naming differences between conditions, indicating that no single gender combination was more difficult for this group. This contrasts with many previous studies that have found error rates to differ by condition, with higher error rates for incongruent items as compared to congruent items (e.g., Bordag, 2004; Klassen, 2016; Lemhöfer et al., 2008;

2010; Morales et al., 2011; Salamoura & Williams, 2007), including one study that found a gender-congruency effect in error rates (i.e., significantly more errors were made with incongruent items) but failed to find an effect in naming times (Bordag & Pechmann, 2008).

So why did the Late L2 Italian group in the current study perform differently from populations in previous studies? One individual difference measure that is difficult to compare across studies is proficiency. Most previous studies investigating gender-congruency have described their participants as being of advanced proficiency. However, it is impossible to know precisely what each researcher means by this description. For example, Lemhöfer et al. (2008) used the term highly proficient to describe their bilinguals, the same term used in the current study, yet their group was so inaccurate at assigning gender to nouns in the L2 that a gender training component was added to the study. The difficulty in comparing proficiency levels across studies is especially problematic, as many researchers have suggested that proficiency may be

181 partly responsible for the presence or absence of the gender-congruency effect (e.g., Bordag,

2004; Salamoura & Williams, 2007). Bordag (2004), for example, suggests that the role of proficiency “become a subject of further research on this topic” (p. 214). Perhaps the Late L2

Italian group in the current study simply has proficiency level that is unique among studies investigating gender-congruency?

Another factor that is underreported in the literature is language use. Specifically, how often do speakers use their L1 versus their L2 and in what contexts and domains do they use each language? This factor, in combination with overall language environment (i.e., L1 vs. L2 vs. bilingual environments), may also play a role in a speaker’s performance. Although the Late L2

Italian groups in the current study were tested in the L1 environment (Austria), they reported speaking their L2 Italian, on average, nearly 20% of the time. Additionally, in contrast to the

South Tyroleans, these speakers learned their L2 Italian primarily in a classroom setting and had fewer opportunities outside of the classroom to use the language. It is possible that these speakers have more strictly compartmentalized their use of their L2 Italian (e.g., to the classroom) as compared to the South Tyroleans, who grew up with the opportunity to use the L2 both in the classroom as well as in daily life. Thus, when these speakers are in L1 or L2 mode, they are more effectively able to reduce influence from the other language. This same argument could perhaps be made for populations tested in previous studies. However, previous studies looking at the gender-congruency effect used a familiarization phrase prior to the experiment proper, in which participants saw the images (in the case of picture naming studies) along with its L2 word, which they were instructed to use (e.g., Bordag, 2004; Bordag & Pechmann, 2007;

Bordag & Pechmann, 2008; Klassen, 2016; Lemhöfer et al., 2008; Morales et al., 2011; Paolieri,

Cubelli, et al., 2010; Salamoura & Williams, 2007). The majority of these familiarization phases

182 included not just the word in the L2 (the language used to name images following the familiarization phase), but also the L1 (e.g., Bordag, 2004; Bordag & Pechmann, 2007; Bordag

& Pechmann, 2008; Morales et al., 2011; Salamoura & Williams, 2007). Thus, even if these populations were equally as practiced at compartmentalizing their language use as the groups in the current study (especially those tested in the L1 environment), once they entered the lab, they were exposed to both languages along with the images they would later be asked to name. This would cause the L2 environment of the lab to become more of a bilingual environment, where both L1 and L2 use is possible. The current study did not include a familiarization phase, meaning that participants could remain as close to L2 Italian mode as possible with minimal interference from their L1 German.

5.5.2 Is There Something Special About Neuter Nouns in German?

Every time a neuter effect (i.e., differences in naming times of images in the Neuter vs.

Congruent and Incongruent conditions) appeared in the L1 German data, this effect was found in all groups, including the Control Group. It was expected that such an if a neuter effect was found that it would be caused by influence from the L2 Italian gender system on the L1 German gender system. However, as the Control Group shared an L1 with the experimental groups, but not an

L2, the fact that they also showed this effect signals that this effect was not due to influence from

Italian.

All images used in the study were normed on speakers belonging to the same populations that took part in the experiments described here and were balanced according to naming agreement across conditions (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, and Neuter), minimizing the risk that images belonging to a particular condition were more difficult to name than others. In addition, there were no differences in accuracy by condition on any of the picture naming tasks in the

183 current study, demonstrating that this unexpected result cannot be attributed to a difficulty with any one gender. Finally, all conditions (i.e., Congruent, Incongruent, and Neuter) were matched for word frequency, animacy, and length, minimizing the risk that naming times would be positively or negatively affected in any of the three conditions.

An alternate explanation for why neuter effects were found in all groups may be that there is something unique about the neuter gender category within the German language and neuter nouns are thus processed differently than masculine or feminine nouns. The reason why this could be the case remains unclear. One possibility is the relative rarity of neuter nouns in the language. Though the exact percentages for the gender distribution in German vary, all accounts agree that neuter is the smallest category, with accounts estimating that only 20% of German nouns are neuter compared to 50% masculine and 30% feminine (Bauch, 1971). These distribution differences, particularly in the relative rarity of the neuter category, may potentially affect speakers’ access to each different gender category. Further research into this issue is required before any less-speculative conclusions may be drawn.

5.5.3 Does the L2 Influence the L1 at the Grammatical Level?

In the current study, the gender-congruency effect, whereby congruent nouns were named faster than incongruent nouns, was found in only two instances in L1 German naming. In all other cases, there were no significant differences in naming times between Congruent and

Incongruent nouns in L1 German. Further, the two times this gender-congruency effect emerged, this effect was also present in the Control Group. Because this group did not speak any Italian, such effects cannot be attributed to the influence of Italian. Therefore, the L1 German results remain inconclusive. Is the finding that the Control Group also shows these gender-congruency effects simply a fluke? Were speakers in the Control Group inadvertently influenced by the

184 languages they spoke other than English?20 Or does the current study provide evidence that the

L2 Italian gender system does not influence the L1 German gender system during language production in these populations?

If one assumes that the neuter effects present in the L1 German data are attributable to something unique about the neuter gender category (as discussed in the previous section) and not to any cross-language interaction between the German and Italian gender systems, these effects can be removed from any discussion of cross-language interaction. Once these neuter effects are temporarily discarded, only the traditional gender-congruency effect (i.e., Congruent <

Incongruent) remains. In the remaining data, there are just two instances in which a traditional gender-congruency effect emerges (albeit, also in the Control Group): in the Determiner+Noun naming condition during Session 2 (Experiment 1) and in the L1 German sentence naming

(Experiment 2). In the latter case—in Experiment 2—there is no clear explanation for this finding. However, this is the only time a gender-congruency effect appeared in the context of an all-German task in a session in which participants spoke only German during the entire session, across multiple tasks with multiple participant groups in two different experiments. Thus, I conclude that this most likely an anomalous finding in light of the larger patterns in the L1

German data. In the former case-- in Experiment 1—this effect is present only when naming in the L1 German immediately following naming in the L2 Italian.21 Interestingly, when participants completed this same task during Session 1 (L1 German Determiner+Noun naming), no such effect was present. This was true for both the South Tyroleans living in Austria as well

20 Ideally, participants in the Control Group would be speakers of German and English only. However, due to the educational system in Europe, most university students have had exposure to at least one Romance language during their schooling. In Experiment 1 of the current study, for example, only one out of 25 participants in the Control Group did not report speaking any languages beyond German and English. The remaining 24 listed minimal or higher proficiency in at least one Romance language. 21 When groups were analyzed separately, a gender-congruency effect was present in both the South Tyroleans in South Tyrol and the South Tyroleans in Austria, but was not present in the Control Group. 185 as for the South Tyroleans living in bilingual South Tyrol. This raises the possibility that the L1 gender system is—at most—only temporarily affected by the L2 gender system following a large amount of activation of the L2. This is in line with the finding from Morales et al. (2011), in which participants only showed a gender-congruency effect when naming in the L1 for the words that they had immediately beforehand named in the L2. This was precisely the case in Session 2 of the current study, in which participants completed the L1 German Determiner+Noun task following completion of the identical task in their L2 Italian.

5.6 Future Research

While the current study has added to our understanding of when and under what circumstances bilinguals experience cross-language interaction at the grammatical level as well as to our general understanding of language production, it has also exposed the need for more research on this topic. Specifically, three suggestions for future studies are proposed below that would continue to advance our understanding.

5.6.1 Run a Similar Study Manipulating Both Gender Congruency and Cognate Status

One of the fundamental findings to emerge from this dissertation is that language environment impacts lexical access in bilinguals, but does not appear to influence cross-language interaction at the grammatical level. In the current study, lexical access was measured by looking at overall naming times in picture naming tasks and by performance on a verbal fluency task, whereas cross-language interaction was measured by the presence or absence of the gender- congruency effect in picture naming. In order to test for cross-language interaction at both the lexical and grammatical levels within the same experiment, using the same methodology, future studies could manipulate both gender congruency and cognate status in the same experiment.

This would allow researchers to see whether speakers experience additive benefits (i.e., shorter

186 naming times) while naming cognates that are also gender-congruent and whether these combined effects differ by language environment. This manipulation of both cognate status and gender congruency was carried out previously in Lemhöfer et al. (2008; 2010), who found that the gender-congruency effect differed somewhat between cognates and non-cognates. However, those studies did not manipulate language environment. Running a study that manipulates both gender congruency and cognate status with the same groups used in the current study (i.e., South

Tyroleans in South Tyrol vs. South Tyroleans in Austria) would help to determine whether language environment would continue to affect interaction at the lexical, but not the grammatical level.

5.6.2 Test Early and Balanced Bilinguals

Previous studies have focused mainly on late L2 learners when investigating gender congruency, with more studies finding gender-congruency effects than not. However, Costa,

Kovacic, Franck, et al. (2003) tested early (average age of onset of L2 acquisition between 5-9), more balanced bilinguals and failed to find any gender-congruency effects. The current study tested both late L2 learners as well as unbalanced bilinguals who began acquiring their L2 around age six. Differences in performance were observed between the late learners, who failed to show any effects of gender congruency, and the early acquirers in the current study, who did show gender-congruency effects. What is not clear is whether these differences between groups in the current study can be at least partially attributed to age of acquisition. Furthermore, the bilinguals in Costa, Kovacic, Franck, et al. (2003), who failed to show any effects of gender congruency, began learning their L2s around the same time as the South Tyroleans in the current study, yet were reported to be balanced bilinguals, whereas the participants in the current study were all L1 German dominant. If the South Tyrolean participants in the current study had been

187 balanced bilinguals, would they have also failed to show an effect of gender congruency?

Knowing the answer to this question may help further researchers tease apart whether language dominance is another factor that may affect the amount of interaction of L1 and L2 gender systems during language production.

5.6.3 Test L1 Italian-L2 German Bilinguals

When gender-congruency effects were present in the L2 data of the current study, the effect followed the pattern evidenced in studies with monolingual speakers of Germanic languages. Namely, Congruent images were named faster than Incongruent images and this effect appeared only when gender information was explicitly required by context (as opposed to speakers of Romance languages who named incongruent images faster than congruent images and only in bare noun naming conditions). This finding can be interpreted as supporting L1 language production models that predict exactly these patterns (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999). However, it may also be the case that these bilinguals pattern this way because their first language is German. What would happen if speakers with the opposite language combination were tested? Would this pattern of results hold with L1 Italian - L2 German bilinguals? One other study to date has tested a group of bilinguals who speak one Romance and one Germanic language. Klassen (2016) tested L1 Spanish-L2 German speakers (intermediate proficiency) and found somewhat different results from those obtained in the current dissertation.

For example, she found that the gender-congruency and neuter effects that appeared were present in both the bare noun naming and definite article + noun naming conditions. This pattern differs both from the pattern observed in the current study, in which effects were present only in

Determiner+Noun naming conditions, and from studies with monolingual speakers of Germanic or Romance languages. Thus, in order to determine how the exact language combination tested

188 in the current study would differ if the L1 had been a Romance language, a group of L1 Italian-

L2 German speakers must be tested.

5.7 Final Summary

The primary goal of this dissertation was to better understand cross-language interaction in bilinguals, specifically at the grammatical level, and to investigate several speaker-internal and speaker-external factors that may influence such interaction in these speakers. Broadly, the results of the current study demonstrate that while cross-language interaction at the grammatical level is present in certain in L1 German-L2 Italian bilinguals (South Tyrolean groups) when naming in the L2, not all populations (Late L2 Italian group) experience interaction at this level during language production. Furthermore, this interaction occurs regardless of whether speakers are naming images in isolation (Experiment 1) or naming images embedded in sentences, which are inherently more language specific (Experiment 2). However, despite the robust findings showing that the L1 gender system influences the L2 gender system during production, there is little evidence from the data that would indicate that such influence occurs in the opposite direction (L2 influence on the L1). Finally, what this dissertation highlights above all, is that many speaker-internal and speaker-external factors influence the amount of cross-language interaction experienced by bilinguals during language production, but that these factors do not necessarily influence cross-language interaction in equivalent ways at lexical versus grammatical levels of processing. Most notably, language environment has a measurable impact on the speed of lexical access among bilinguals, but does not influence cross-language interaction of gender systems in these same speakers. This finding makes clear that the nature of cross-language interaction is a highly nuanced phenomenon and cannot be characterized as a monolithic force that is either categorically present or absent in a particular population.

189

The secondary goal of this dissertation was to collect data that would help to answer open questions in L1 language production models, specifically questions surrounding access and selection of grammatical gender. The pattern of results from Experiment 1 clearly support language production models like WEAVER++ (e.g., Levelt et al., 1999) and the Independent

Network Model (e.g., Caramazza, 1997) that predict that gender information for a word is only accessed when the context explicitly requires it (as in the Determiner+Noun naming condition).

Critically, the current dissertation makes clear how the complicated interactions between speaker-internal and speaker-external factors can influence whether a particular bilingual will experience cross-language interaction in a given context and whether various levels of processing (e.g., lexical, grammatical) are affected differently by certain factors. In doing so, it underscores the importance of taking factors such as language environment, language use patterns, proficiency level, language dominance, age of L2 acquisition, experimental context, language context, and bilingual mode into consideration when investigating bilingual populations.

190

REFERENCES

Alario, F.-X., & Caramazza, A. (2002). The production of determiners: Evidence from French. Cognition, 82(3), 179–223.

Alcock, A. (1992). The protection of regional cultural minorities and the process of European integration: The example of South Tyrol. International Relations, 11(1), 17–36.

Alcock, A. (2000). From tragedy to triumph: The German language in South Tyrol 1922-2000. In G. Hogan-Brun (Ed.), National Varieties of German Outside Germany (pp. 161–194). Oxford: Peter Lang.

Argyri, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 79–99.

ASTAT - Landesinstitut für Stastistik. (2011). Südtirol in Zahlen - Alto Adige in cifre. Retrieved from http://www.provincia.bz.it/astat/de/service/845.asp

ASTAT - Landesinstitut für Statistik. (2016). Statistisches Jahrbuch 2016-annuario statistico 2016. Retrieved from http://astat.provinz.bz.it/downloads/JB2016_K3(2).pdf

Bauch, H.-J. (1971). Zum Informationsgehalt der Kategorie Genus im Deutschen, Englischen und Polnischen. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Der Universität Rostock, 20(6), 411–419.

Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). On the effects of second language immersion on first language production. Acta Psychologica, 142(3), 402–409.

Bertinetto, P. M., Burani, C., Laudanna, A., Marconi, L., Ratti, D., Rolando, C., & Thornton, A. M. (2005). CoLFIS. Corpus and Frequency Lexicon of Written Italian.

Bianchi, G. (2013). Gender in Italian–German bilinguals: A comparison with German L2 learners of Italian. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 538–557.

Blattner, G. (2007). Processing verbal arguments in a first and second language: The role of immersion experience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Bordag, D. (2004). Interaction of L1 and L2 systems at the level of grammatical encoding: Evidence from picture naming. EUROSLA Yearbook, 4(1), 203–230.

Bordag, D., & Pechmann, T. (2007). Factors influencing L2 gender processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(3), 299–314.

Bordag, D., & Pechmann, T. (2008). Grammatical gender in speech production: Evidence from Czech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(2), 69–85.

191

Byers-Heinlein, K. (2013). Parental language mixing: Its measurement and the relation of mixed input to young bilingual children’s vocabulary size. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 32-48.

Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(1), 177–208.

Caramazza, A., & Miozzo, M. (1997). The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: Evidence from the `tip-of-the-tongue’ phenomenon. Cognition, 64(3), 309–343.

Cavagnoli, S., & Nardin, F. (1999). Second language acquisition in South Tyrol: Difficulties, motivations, expectations. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 18(1), 17–45.

Chini, M. (1998). Genuserwerb des Italienischen durch deutsche Lerner. In H. Wegener (Ed.), Eine zweite Sprache lernen: Empirische Untersuchungen zum Zueitspracherwerb (pp. 39– 60). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A. M. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 324–345.

Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283–1296.

Costa, A., Kovacic, D., Fedorenko, E., & Caramazza, A. (2003). The gender congruency effect and the selection of freestanding and bound morphemes: Evidence from Croatian. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(6), 1270–1282.

Costa, A., Kovacic, D., Franck, J., & Caramazza, A. (2003). On the autonomy of the grammatical gender systems of the two languages of a bilingual. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(3), 181–200.

Cubelli, R., Lotto, L., Paolieri, D., Girelli, M., & Job, R. (2005). Grammatical gender is selected in bare noun production: Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 42–59.

Dal Negro, S. (2005). Minority language between nationalism and new localism: The case of Italy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2005(174), 113–124.

De Angelis, G. (2012). The effect of population distribution on L1 and L2 acquisition: Evidence from the multilingual region of South Tyrol. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(4), 407–422.

192

Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retreival in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321.

Dussias, P. E. (2003). Spanish-English code mixing at the auxiliary phrase: Evidence from eye- movement data. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 1(2), 7–34.

Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish– English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101–116.

Eichinger, L. (2002). South Tyrol: German and Italian in a changing world. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(1 & 2), 137–141.

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non-search task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.

Foucart, A., Branigan, H. P., & Bard, E. G. (2010). Determiner selection in Romance languages: Evidence from French. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1414–1421.

Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 787–814.

Green, D. W. (1998). Schemas, tags and inhibition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81.

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15.

Grosjean, F. (1998). Transfer and language mode. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 175–176.

Grosjean, F. (2012, September). How Many Are We? On the difficulty of counting people who are bilingual. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201209/how-many-are-we

Hatzidaki, A., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). Co-activation of syntax in bilingual language production. Cognitive Psychology, 62(2), 123–150.

Heister, J., Würzner, K.-M., Bubenzer, J., Pohl, E., Hanneforth, T., Geyken, A., & Kliegl, R. (2011). dlexDB–eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 62(1), 10–20.

Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 824–843.

193

Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137–166.

Klassen, R. (2016). The representation of asymmetric grammatical gender systems in the bilingual mental lexicon. Probus, 28(1), 9–28.

Köpcke, K.-M., & Zubin, D. A. (1983). Die kognitive Organisation der Genuszuweisung zu den einsilbigen Nomen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Zeitschrift Für Germanische Linguistik, 11(2), 166–182.

Köpcke, K.-M., & Zubin, D. A. (1984). Sechs Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur natürlichen Klassifikation. Linguistische Berichte, 26–50.

Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 416–430.

Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2004). The comprehension of words and sentences in two languages. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 169– 200). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bogulski, C. A., & Valdes Kroff, J. R. (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory (pp. 229–262). San Diego: Elsevier Inc.

Kroll, J. F., & Gollan, T. (2014). Speech planning in two languages: What bilinguals tell us about language production. In M. Goldrick, V. Ferreira, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Production (pp. 165–181). New York: Oxford University Press.

La Heij, W., Mak, P., Sander, J., & Willeboordse, E. (1998). The gender-congruency effect in picture-word tasks. Psychological Research, 61(3), 209–219.

Land Südtirol. (2012). Das ist Südtirol: Autonomie. Bolzano: Land Südtirol.

Lemhöfer, K., Schriefers, H., & Hanique, I. (2010). Native language effects in learning second- language grammatical gender: A training study. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 150–158.

Lemhöfer, K., Spalek, K., & Schriefers, H. (2008). Cross-language effects of grammatical gender in bilingual word recognition and production. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(3), 312–330.

Leonardi, M. M. V. (2016). Bilingualism or trilingualism? Social versus linguistic views: Evidence from the Germanic-speaking language group in South Tyrol (Italy) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bangor University, Bangor.

194

Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(6), 223– 232.

Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–75.

Levy, B. J., McVeigh, N. D., Marful, A., & Anderson, M. C. (2007). Inhibiting your native language: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting during second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 18(1), 29–34.

Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second- language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515.

Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–83.

Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 651–662.

Major, R. C. (1992). Losing English as a first language. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 190–208.

Maurer-Lausegger, H. (2003). The diversity of languages in the Alpine-Adriatic region I. Linguistic minorities and enclaves in northern Italy. Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning, 2(1), 5– 23.

Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.

Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). The selection of determiners in noun phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 907–922.

Miozzo, M., Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2002). The absence of a gender congruency effect in romance languages: A matter of stimulus onset asynchrony? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 388–391.

Morales, L., Paolieri, D., & Bajo, T. (2011). Grammatical gender inhibition in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 284.

Morales, L., Paolieri, D., Cubelli, R., & Bajo, M. T. (2014). Transfer of Spanish grammatical gender to English: Evidence from immersed and non-immersed bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 700–708.

195

Paolieri, D., Cubelli, R., Macizo, P., Bajo, T., Lotto, L., & Job, R. (2010). Grammatical gender processing in Italian and Spanish bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(8), 1631–45.

Paolieri, D., Lotto, L., Leoncini, D., Cubelli, R., & Job, R. (2011). Differential effects of grammatical gender and gender inflection in bare noun production. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 19–36.

Paolieri, D., Lotto, L., Morales, L., Bajo, T., Cubelli, R., & Job, R. (2010). Grammatical gender processing in romance languages: Evidence from bare noun production in Italian and Spanish. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 335–347.

Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(3), 164–171.

Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1–3), 107–142.

Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2007). The representation of grammatical gender in the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from Greek and German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(3), 257–275.

Sánchez-Casas, R., & García-Albea, J. E. (2005). The representation of cognate and noncognate words in bilingual memory: Can cognate status be characterized by as a special kind of morphological relation? In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 226–250). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schiller, N. O., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Grammatical feature selection in noun phrase production: Evidence from German and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 169–194.

Schmid, M. S., & Köpke, B. (2007). Bilingualism and attrition. In B. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzel, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–7). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime (version 2.0).

Schriefers, H. (1992). Lexical access in the production of pronouns. Cognition, 45(1), 33–54.

Schriefers, H. (1993). Syntactic processes in the production of noun phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(4), 841–850.

Schriefers, H., & Jescheniak, J. D. (1999). Representation and processing of grammatical gender in language production: A review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(6), 575–600.

196

Schriefers, H., & Teruel, E. (2000). Grammatical gender in noun phrase production: The gender interference effect in German. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1368–1377.

Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197–212.

Schweigkofler, A. (2000). South Tyrol: Rethinking ethnolinguistic vitality. In S. Wolff (Ed.), German Minorities in Europe: Ethnic identity and cultural belonging (pp. 63–72). New York: Berghahn Books.

Starreveld, P. A., de Groot, A. M. B., Rossmark, B. M. M., & van Hell, J. G. (2013). Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 258–276.

Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 387–422.

Szekely, A., Jacobsen, T., D’Amico, S., Devescovi, A., Andonova, E., Herron, D., … Bates, E. (2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 247–250.

Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign- language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(30), 12530–12535.

Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1–L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1412–1431.

Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498–505.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). American community survey reports. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf van Berkum, J. J. A. (1997). Syntactic processes in speech production: The retrieval of grammatical gender. Cognition, 64(2), 115–152. van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 431–451.

197 van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 780–789.

Van Hell, J. G., & Tanner, D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation. Language Learning, 62(2), 148–171.

Vettori, C., Wisniewski, K., & Abel, A. (2012). Becoming bilingual in a multilingual context: A snapshot view of L2 competencies in South Tyrol. In K. Braunmüller & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies (pp. 437–455). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

198

Appendix A: List of Stimuli

Condition German Italian English Congruent: Fem_Fem Glocke campana bell Flasche bottiglia bottle Kerze candela candle Kirche chiesa church Puppe bambola doll Tür porta door Fliege mosca fly Gabel forchetta fork Zwiebel cipolla onion Birne pera pear Dusche doccia shower Schildkröte tartaruga turtle Congruent: Masc_Masc Rucksack zaino backpack Knopf bottone button Käse formaggio cheese Hund cane dog Finger dito finger Fisch pesce fish Hut cappello hat Löwe leone lion Spiegel specchio mirror Pilz fungo mushroom Teppich tappeto rug Löffel cucchiaio spoon Incongruent: Fem_Masc Brücke ponte bridge Katze gatto cat Blume fiore flower Zitrone limone lemon Maus topo mouse Zeitung giornale newspaper Seife sapone soap Spinne ragno spider Briefmarke francobollo stamp Ampel semaforo stoplight Sonne sole sun Geige violino violin Incongruent: Masc_Fem Apfel mela apple Strand spiaggia beach Gürtel cintura belt Schmetterling farfalle butterfly Schlüssel chiave key Brief lettera letter Mond luna moon

199

Bleistift matita pencil Regen pioggia rain Rock gonna skirt Stern stella star Bahnhof stazione train station Neuter_Neut_Fem Fahrrad bicicletta bicycle Auto macchina car Kreuz croce cross Haus casa house Blatt foglia leaf Seil corda rope Schaf pecora sheep Hemd camicia shirt Zelt tenda tent Rad ruota wheel Fenster finestra window Neuter_Neut_Masc Bett letto bed Buch libro book Brot pane bread Handy cellular cell phone Feuer fuoco fire Glas bicchiere glass Herz cuore heart Pferd cavallo horse Messer coltello knife Schwein maiale pig Kissen cuscino pillow Eichhörnchen scoiattolo squirrel Dreieck triangolo triangle

List of Fillers Condition German Italian English Congruent_Fem_Fem Stadt città city Wolke nuvola cloud Feder piuma feather Kette collana necklace Tasche borsa purse Träne lacrima tear Cong_Fem_Fem_Vowel Biene ape bee Ente anatra duck Gans oca goose Orange arancia orange Schaukel altalena swing Welle onda wave

200

Congruent_Masc_Masc Stock bastone cane Kreis cerchio circle Hase coniglio rabbit Tisch tavolo table Zug treno train Wolf lupo wolf

Congruent_Masc_Masc_Vowel Bär orso bear Vogel uccello bird Knochen osso bone Drachen aquilone kite Ring anello ring Baum albero tree

201

Appendix B: German Target Sentences, High (a) & Low (b) Constraint

1a. Wenn die Leute sonntags zur Messe gehen, läutet die Glocke im Glockenturm. 1b. Als Richard aus dem Büro kam, hörte er die Glocke vom Dom.

2a. Weil sie keine Karaffe für den Wein hat, gibt die Kellnerin dem Gast die Flasche zusammen mit den Gläsern. 2b. Nach dem Essen mit ihrer ganzen Familie nimmt Julia die Flasche aus dem Kühlschrank.

3a. Um Licht nach dem Stromausfall zu haben, zündet die Mutter die Kerze mit einem Streichholz an. 3b. Wenn die Dienerin in der Nacht aufsteht, trägt sie die Kerze mit der großen Flamme.

4a. Um in Ruhe beten zu können, besucht die alte Frau die Kirche, in der sie getauft wurde. 4b. Als die österreichische Familie in Chile war, sah sie die Kirche am großen Platz.

5a. Zu Weihnachten bekommt der Junge den Feuerwehrwagen und das Mädchen bekommt die Puppe aus dem Spielzeugladen. 5b. Weil Beate nach der Schule zu ihrer Freundin geht, nimmt sie die Puppe von der Oma mit.

6a. Wenn du heim kommst, schließ bitte die Tür, weil es draußen kalt ist. 6b. Weil Sara heute und morgen nicht arbeit muss, will sie unbedingt die Tür streichen.

7a. Der hungrige Frosch streckt seine lange Zunge raus, um aus der Luft die Fliege zu schnappen. 7b. Weil der Mann so verärgert war, hat er die Fliege mit der Klatsche geschlagen.

8a. Statt die Nudeln mit den Stäbchen zu essen, benutzt Nora die Gabel, um schneller essen zu können. 8b. Als die Familie am Abend essen wollte, ist die Gabel auf den Boden gefallen.

9a. Um die Suppe zu machen, schält, schneidet, und bräunt Marta in einer Pfanne die Zwiebel aus Spanien. 9b. Die Hausfrau hat beim Kochen schon wieder vergessen, die Zwiebel in der Pfanne anzubraten.

10a. Der Schappsbrenner verwendet viele Obstsorten, aber besser als die Marille oder die Zwetschge ist die Birne für den Geschmack. 10b. Der im Garten stehende Gast hat nichts gehört, als die Birne auf den Boden gefallen ist.

202

11a. Nach dem Sport geht der verschwitzte Athlet unter die Dusche, um sich zu waschen. 11b. Nachdem wir in die neue Wohnung eingezogen sind, mussten wir die Dusche reparieren lassen.

12a. Als einziges Reptil mit einem Panzer ist die Schildkröte vom Aussterben bedroht. 12b. Bei seinem Besuch im Tierpark wollte Thomas unbedingt die Schildkröte von den Galapagosinseln sehen.

13a. Um Wasser und Essen zum Wandern mitzubringen, trage ich auf dem Rücken den Rucksack mit dem blauen Sticker darauf. 13b. Der Vater musste am Abend noch einmal in die Stadt fahren, weil sein Sohn den Rucksack vergessen hatte.

14a. Damit die Studentin ihre Jacke zuknöpfen kann, nähte sie den Knopf an. 14b. Weil es gestern so dunkel war, habe ich gar nicht gemerkt, dass der Knopf meiner Jacke abgefallen war.

15a. Zum Frühstück legt die Mutter die Semmeln, die Butter, die Wurst und den Käse auf die Theke. 15b. Weil die Oma nicht da war, hat der Opa dieses Mal den Käse auf das Brett gelegt.

16a. Der Nachbar hörte das Bellen und danach sah er den Hund mit seinen Welpen durch den Garten tollen. 16b. Letzte Woche hat Christina ihren Onkel besucht und hat den Hund zum ersten Mal gesehen.

17a. Um den festsitzenden Ring abzubekommen, hielt sie den Finger unter kaltes Wasser. 17b. Beim Kuchenbacken benutzte Ines den Finger, um vom Teig zu naschen.

18a. Beim Angeln am Wochenende, fing Alex den Fisch, den wir heute Abend essen. 18b. Heute Abend kochen Alexander und Lisa für uns den Fisch, der uns am besten schmeckt.

19a. Um ihr Gesicht vor den intensiven Strahlen zu schützen, trägt die Sonnenbadende den Hut aus Stroh. 19b. Am sonnigen Dienstag war der Wind rund um die Uni so stark, dass Philip den Hut verloren hat.

20a. Als König des Dschungels brüllt der Löwe lauter als alle anderen. 20b. Wenn die kleinen Kinder diesen Film anschauen, erschreckt der Löwe sie jedes Mal.

21a. Damit der Junge sich jeden Morgen betrachten kann, hängt der Spiegel in seinem Badezimmer. 21b. Weil sie sich in der Früh beeilen musste, legte Sophie den Spiegel auf den Boden.

203

22a. Weil viele Sorten hochgiftig sind, egal ob man den Stiel isst oder nicht, aß der vorsichtige Sammler den Pilz nicht. 22b. Als wir gestern im Wald waren, haben wir den Pilz mit dem roten Punkte gesehen.

23a. Um ein einen Teil des Bodens im Esszimmer abzudecken, nahm das Ehepaar den Teppich aus der Türkei. 23b. Das Zimmer sieht so langweilig aus, deswegen kauft Anna den Teppich mit den bunten Farben.

24a. Um Suppe zu essen, benutzt man den Löffel und nicht die Hand. 24b. Weil sich der Professor heute Morgen verspätet hat, vergaß er den Löffel für das Jogurt in seiner Wohnung.

25a. Um über den Fluss zu kommen, benutzt man die Brücke, wenn man nicht schwimmen kann. 25b. Als die Cousinen im Urlaub waren, sahen sie die Brücke, die neu gebaut wurde.

26a. Wenn man sie streichelt, miaut die Katze sehr laut. 26b. Während die Studentin die Zeitschrift las, hat sie die Katze im Keller gehört.

27a. Aus dem Garten pflückte die Verlobte die Blume, die ihr am besten gefällt. 27b. Als Überraschung gab die Mutter ihrer jüngsten Tocher die Blume, die sie heute Morgen kaufte.

28a. Für die erfrischende Limonade schneidet die Mutter die Zitrone auf dem Brett. 28b. Nachdem Maria einkaufen gegangen war, legte sie die Zitrone in die Obstschale.

29a. Die berühmteste Zeichentrickfigur Walt Disneys ist nicht die Ratte sondern die Maus, die Mickey heißt. 29b. Als das Kind gestern mit seiner Freundin im Park war, sah es die Maus, die im Park lebt.

30a. Zu seinem allmorgendlichen Kaffee liest der Politiker die Zeitung aus Frankfurt. 30b. Als der Rentner nach langer Zeit aufsteht, legt er die Zeitung auf den Stuhl.

31a. Wenn man sich die Hände wäscht, benutzt man am besten die Seife und warmes Wasser. 31b. Weil er seit einer Woche nicht im Supermarkt war, muss er heute extra hingehen, um die Seife zu kaufen.

32a. Um ihre Beute ins Netz zu locken, macht die Spinne manchmal verrückte Sachen. 32b. Die Studentin stand minutenlang unter Schock, nachdem sie die Spinne gesehen hatte.

204

33a. Bevor Sybille die Bewerbung in den Umschlag steckt, leckt sie die Briefmarke und klebt sie auf den Umschlag. 33b. Als der Kunde aus dem Laden kam, freute er sich, weil er die Briefmarke gekauft hatte.

34a. An dieser Kreuzung gab es immer nur das Stoppschild, aber jetzt steht auch die Ampel an der Kreuzung. 34b. Die Studentin ging so schnell, dass sie die Ampel gar nicht sah.

35a. Das hellste Objekt am Himmel ist die Sonne, die immer scheint. 35b. Sylvie findet es schön, wenn sie nach dem Aufstehen gleich die Sonne sehen kann.

36a. Wenn der kleine Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ein Streichinstrument spielen wollte, spielte er die Geige sehr oft 36b. Zu ihrem Geburtstag schenkten die Eltern der Schülerin die Geige, damit sie im Orchester spielen konnte.

37a. Bevor sie für immer einschlief, biss Schneewittchen in den Apfel von der Hexe. 37b. Als die Hausfrau am Vormittag auf dem Markt war, kaufte sie den Apfel, den sie gerade isst.

38a. Weil August so warm ist und Leute ans Meer wollen, fahren viele an den Strand, um sich zu entspannen. 38b. Maria und Eleonora möchten dieses Wochenende nicht daheim bleiben, weil sie den Strand in der Zeitschrift gesehen haben.

39a. Weil seine Hose ein bisschen groß ist, trägt Holger den Gürtel um sie hochzuhalten. 39b. Während der Urlauber in Milan war, kaufte er die Schuhe und den Gürtel, die er heute trägt.

40a. Nachdem er aus dem Kokon geschlüpft ist, schlägt der Schmetterling mit seinen Flügeln. 40b. Die Schwestern fingen heute im Garten den Schmetterling, der die roten Flügel hat.

41a. Der Hausmeister wollte den Raum abschließen, aber er vergaß den Schlüssel in seinem Wagen. 41b. Walther ist auf dem Weg nach München, und denkt an den Schlüssel, den er dort bekommen wird.

42a. Als er seinen Postkasten geleert hatte, sah er den Brief von seiner Frau. 43b. Weil der Schüler heute nach der Schule zu seinem Freund geht, nimmt er den Brief mit.

43a. 1969 besuchten die amerikanischen Astronauten den Mond zum ersten Mal. 43b. Die Künstlerin zeichnet sehr oft den Mond, weil sie ihn schön findet.

205

44a. Wenn ich einen Radierer habe, benutze ich keinen Kuli, sondern den Bleistift zum Schreiben. 44b. Wenn Petra nichts besseres zu tun hat, nimmt sie den Bleistift und zeichnet.

45a. Während einer Dürre hofft man, dass der Regen bald zurück kommt. 45b. Von seinem Zimmer im vierten Stock sieht Hendrik den Regen und die Blitze.

46a. Statt das Kleid zu tragen, trägt die Frau die Bluse und den Rock, die sie gestern kaufte. 46b. Die nette Verkäuferin verkaufte dem jungen Mädchen den Rock für 30 Euro.

47a. Heute Nacht scheint über meinem Dach nicht nur der Mars, sondern es funkelt auch der Stern, der nach Norden weist. 47b. Vom Schiff sahen die Touristen den Stern, der sehr glänzend leuchtete.

48a. Die Studentin wollte ihren ICE nicht verpassen, und lief deswegen durch den Bahnhof zu ihrem Gleis. 48b. Als die Tochter in Leipzig war, hat sie jeden Tag den Bahnhof besucht.

49a. Wenn ich den Bus zur Uni verpasse, setze ich meinen Helm auf und nehme das Fahrrad zur Uni. 49b. Alex wusste nicht, dass seine Freundin bereits für ihn das Fahrrad als Geburtstagsgeschenk gekauft hatte.

50a. Wenn ich heute meinen Führerschein bestehe, nehme ich morgen das Auto zur Schule. 50b. Weil Maren vorher nicht richtig geschaut hatte, hat sie das Auto gar nicht gesehen.

51a. Um zu zeigen, dass sie Christin ist, trägt Anna immer das Kreuz um den Hals. 51b. Als der Junge die Karte anschaute, hat er sofort das Kreuz gefunden.

52a. Als sie ihr zweites Kind bekamen, bauten sie das Haus auf dem Land. 52b. Das junge Mädchen wollte als Erwachsene unbedingt das Haus ihrer Eltern kaufen.

53a. Die hungrige Raupe auf der Buche frisst das Blatt, das der Herbst so schön gefärbt hat. 53b. Bei ihrem Spaziergang haben die Zwillinge das Blatt gefunden und mitgenommen.

54a. Um ein Lasso zu machen und das Kalb einzufangen, nimmt der Cowboy das Seil aus dem Stal. 54b. Der Bauer ist zum Baumarkt gegangen, um für sein Projekt den Hammer und das Seil zu kaufen.

206

55a. Wenn der Schäfer Wolle will, schert er das Schaf mit der Schere. 55b. Als die Familie durch die Berge gefahren ist, hat sie das Schaf mit seiner Mutter gesehen.

56a. Für sein wichtiges Interview kauft der Manager zu seinem Anzug das Hemd im Geschäft. 56b. Am Freitag Abend ging Wolfgang mit seiner Frau in den Laden, um das Hemd für die Hochzeit zu kaufen.

57a. Um beim Schlafen trocken zu bleiben, stellen die Camperinnen als Erstes das Zelt auf. 57b. Für das Wochenende in den Alpen bringen die Hamburger das Zelt mit.

58a. Bei einer Wassermühle dreht das Wasser das Rad, um das Getreide zu mahlen. 58b. Damit die Arbeiter das Projekt schneller beenden können, haben sie das Rad repariert.

59a. Weil es gegen die Scheiben geregnet hat, putzt die Putzfrau das Fenster heute schon wieder. 59b. Um ihre Kinder besser zu hören, hat die Mutter das Fenster aufgemacht.

60a. Nachdem die Hotelgäste gegangen waren, bezog das Zimmermädchen das Bett neu und putze das Zimmer. 60b. Weil Lukas die Wohnung gründlich reinigen wollte, stellte er das Bett auf die andere Seite.

61a. Um sich für seine Prüfung gut vorzubereiten, liest Michael das Buch noch einmal. 61b. Die Moderatorin hat gestern in der Sendung über das Buch gesprochen, das ich heute kaufe.

62a. Weil es gerade frisch aus dem Ofen kam und nach Dinkel duftete, verkauft der Bäcker der Frau das Brot für zwei Euro. 62b. Als Lisa nach der Arbeit wieder in der Wohnung war, hat sie das Brot geschnitten.

63a. Michael sitzt im Bus und will seine Mutter anrufen, aber ohne Akku funktioniert das Handy nicht. 63b. Sybille war sehr verärgert, nachdem sie schon wieder das Handy im Bus vergessen hatte.

64a. Um sich im Winter warm zu halten, entdeckten die Steinzeitmenschen das Feuer, nachdem der Blitz in einem Busch eingeschlagen hatte. 64b. Als wir gestern auf die Autobahn gefahren sind, haben wir das Feuer im Süden beobachtet.

65a. Die Gastgeberin entkorkt den Wein und schenkt ihn in das Glas ein. 65b. Bevor Bastian abgereist ist, hatte er mir zum Abschied das Glas geschenkt, das ich jetzt immer benutze.

207

66a. Er hat so großen Liebeskummer, denn als sie Schluss mit ihm machte, brach sie ihm das Herz ein zweites Mal. 66b. Mit dem Farbpinsel malten Juliane und ihre Freunde aus der Schule das Herz rot und gelb an.

67a. Weil Kathrin reiten lernen wollte, haben ihre Eltern das Pferd letztes Jahr gekauft. 67b. Markus besucht seine Tante besonders gern, weil er bei ihr auch das Pferd streicheln kann.

68a. Um dem Kind die Semmel zu schmieren, benutzt die Mutter das Messer vom Vortag. 68b. Weil Karin so in Eile war, hat sie gar nicht bemerkt, dass das Messer auf dem Boden lag.

69a. Weil es verpönt ist, isst man im Islam das Lamm aber nicht das Schwein aus religiösen Gründen. 69b. Obwohl Klara sich zu konzentrieren versucht, denkt sie trotzdem an das Schwein draußen.

70a. Katja will Mittagschlaf machen, also legt sie den Kopf auf das Kissen um bequemer schlafen zu können. 70b. Vielen Leuten ist es lieber, wenn das Kissen sehr weich ist.

71a. Um für den Winter genug Nüsse zu haben, vergräbt das Eichhörnchen Nüsse im Boden. 71b. Als das Paar auf dem Balkon saß und Kaffee trank, hat das Eichhörnchen auf sie geschaut.

72a. In der Geometrie nennt man die dreiseitige Figur das Dreieck, weil es drei Ecken hat. 72b. Damit die Kinder lernen können, heftet die Lehrerin das Dreieck an die Wand.

208

Appendix C: German Filler Sentences (High (HC) and Low (LC) Constraint) & Comprehension Questions

73. Viele Leute leben gern auf dem Land, aber Alice liebt die Stadt und will immer Stadtmensch bleiben. (HC) Comprehension: Liebt Alice die Stadt?

74. Der Himmel war ganz blau und es war hell, aber dann kam die Wolke aus dem Westen. (HC) Comprehension: Kam die Wolke aus dem Osten?

75. Um in den alten Zeiten eine Nachricht zu schreiben, tunkte man die Feder in die Tinte. (HC) Comprehension: Tunkte man die Feder in das Wasser?

76. Zu ihrem Geburtstag schenkte der liebe Sohn seiner Mutter die Kette aus dem Laden. (LC) Comprehension: Schenkte der Mann der Mutter Zum Geburtstag eine Kette?

77. Weil Sara morgen besonders gut aussehen möchte, braucht sie die Tasche, die zu ihrem Kleid passt. (LC) Comprehension: Passt die Tasche zu Saras Pulli?

78. Nachdem Hannah mit ihrem Freund geredet hatte, sah sie die Träne, die aus seinem Auge quoll. (LC) Comprehension: Hat Hannah geweint?

79. Als Peter auf der Terrasse gefrühstückt hat, beobachtete er die Biene, die nach Blüten suchte. (LC) Comprehension: Hat Peter die Biene beobachtet?

80. Wenn Bernd seine Eltern im Frühling auf ihrem Bauernhof besucht, sieht er immer die Ente, die er seit der Kindheit kennt. (LC) Comprehension: Besucht Bernd den Bauernhof seiner Eltern?

81. Zur Abwechslung bestellt Stefan heute zum ersten Mal die Gans mit heißen Maronen, die ihm der Kellner empfohlen hat. (LC) Comprehension: Hat der Kellner Stefan die Gans empfohlen?

82. Karotten und Kürbisse sind keine Zitrusfrüchte, aber sie haben die gleiche Farbe wie die Orange und die Mandarine. (HC) Comprehension: Hat die Orange die gleiche Farbe wie die Tomate?

83. Auf dem Spielplatz steht eine Rutsche und vom Ast hängt die Schaukel für die Kinder. (HC)

209

Comprehension: Steht das Klettergerüst auf dem Spielplatz?

84. Der Surfer im Meer wartet geduldig auf die Welle, die ihm am besten gefällt. (HC) Comprehension: Wartet der Surfer auf die Freundin?

85. Um sicher laufen zu können, braucht der alte Mann den Stock bei seinen Spaziergängen. (HC) Comprehension: Braucht der alte Mann den Stock bei seinen Spaziergängen?

86. Im Matheunterricht zeichnete der Schüler mit dem Zirkel den Kreis mit dem Radius von drei Zentimeter. (HC) Comprehension: Hat der Schüler den Kreis gezeichnet?

87. Um den Kindern zu Ostern bemalte Eier zu schenken, hüpft der Hase überall. (HC) Comprehension: Schenkte der Hase den Kindern Eier?

88. Beim Einkaufen haben die zwei vor kurzem zusammengezogenen Mitbewohner den Tisch gekauft, weil er sehr billig war. (LC) Comprehension: Haben die Mitbewohner einen Sessel gekauft?

89. Obwohl der Professor heute unbedingt nach Innsbruck wollte, hat er den Zug leider verpasst. (LC) Comprehension: Wollte der Professor heute nach Bregenz fahren?

90. Weil er den ganzen Tag durch den Wald gepirscht ist und dadurch müde wurde, schläft der Wolf nun tief und fest. (LC) Comprehension: Ist der Wolf wach?

91. Obwohl Martin ihn noch nicht gesehen hat, hat der Bär Martin schon lange ins Visier genommen. (LC) Comprehension: Hat der Bär Martin lange gesehen?

92. Als Sophie ihren täglichen Spaziergang durch den Wald machte, sah sie den Vogel mit den goldenen Flügeln. (LC) Comprehension: Hat Sophie den Vogel bei ihrem Spaziergang gesehen?

93. Obwohl Miriam ihn nicht bemerkt hat, liegt der Knochen auf dem Boden. (LC) Comprehension: Liegt der Knochen auf dem Boden?

210

94. Um ihm im Herbst steigen zu lassen, bastelten die Kinder den Drachen im Kindergarten. (HC) Comprehension: Bastelten die Kinder mit ihrer Mutter den Drachen?

95. Seit ihrer Hochzeit trägt die Lehrerin den Ring jeden Tag. (HC) Comprehension: Trägt die Ärztin seit der Hochzeit den Ring?

96. Als ihr Kind geboren wurde, pflanzten die Eltern den Baum im Garten. (HC) Comprehension: Pflanzten die Eltern den Busch?

211

Appendix D: Italian Target Sentences, High (a) & Low (b) Constraint

1a. Ogni ora, dal campanile vicino al negozio suona la campana di rame. 1b. A volte mentre ascoltiamo la maestra in classe sentiamo la campana suonare dal campanile.

2a. Venerdì pomerigio in enoteca ho comprato come regalo la bottiglia di vino più costosa. 2b. Per il compleanno di mia moglie ho pensato di regalarle la bottiglia di Chanel che lei ama tanto.

3a. Quando la corrente non c'è, per fare luce si accende con il fiammifero la candela che abbiamo comprato apposta. 3b. Nel salotto della nonna c'è sempre la candela che brucia sul comodino.

4a. Per poter pregare in pace, l'anziana signora ha visitato la chiesa in cui fu battezzata. 4b. Quando la famiglia era in vacanza, ha visto la chiesa nel centro storico.

5a. Al bambino piace giocare con il camion dei pompieri, alla bimba piace giocare con la bambola preferita. 5b. Ieri sera andando in cucina sono inciampato e la bambola mia figlia si è rotta.

6a. Quando entri nell'appartamento, chiudi la porta, per favore, perché fuori fa freddo. 6b. Alla dottoressa piacerebbe passare il fine di settimana a dipingere la porta di rosso.

7a. L'animale che ronza ma non punge è la mosca che vola vicino al soffitto. 7b. Mentre cerco di dormire la notte prima di un esame, mi dà fastidio la mosca che vola in questa stanza.

8a. Per mangiare si afferra con la mano destra la forchetta e non con la mano sinistra. 8b. Nel cassetto vicino al frigo c'è la forchetta di plastica da portare per pranzo.

9a. Quando è in cucina, la mamma piange sempre quando taglia la cipolla ma non l'aglio. 9b. Non mi piace mangiare l'insalata per pranzo se c'è la cipolla nella ciotola.

10a. Non le importa se sono di tipo Williams, kaiser o Bartlett, la bimba vuole mangiare la pera per merenda. 10b. Tornando all'appartamento ho trovato mia figlia piangente perché la pera che stava mangiando aveva dentro un verme.

11a. Ai bambini piace fare il bagno, ma di solito gli adulti fanno la doccia per pulirsi.

212

11b. Nella capanna che affittiamo quando andiamo in vacanza, c'è la doccia nel bagno, ma non la vasca.

12a. L'animale con il guscio che cammina lentamente ma vince la corsa è la tartaruga che si vede nel prato. 12b. A volte nell'ombra nel nostro giardino si vede la tartaruga che mangia l'insalata.

13a. Per portare tutti i quaderni a scuola, la mamma mi ha comprato lo zaino verde e blu. 13b. Ieri sono dovuto ritornare velocemente in ufficio perché avevo dimenticato lo zaino con il mio cambio per la palestra.

14a. La cerniera del cappotto si è rotta, allora per chiuderlo ci abbiamo cucito il bottone di plastica. 14b. All'inizio del mese di marzo si è rotto il bottone del mio cappotto.

15a. Il parmigiano reggiano in tutto il mondo è il formaggio per eccellenza 15b. Ieri sera io e mia moglie siamo andati al ristorante e abbiamo mangiato un piatto con il formaggio fuso.

16a. Il vicino di appartamento ieri sera ha sentito abbaiare il cane e poi lo ha visto con i suoi cuccioli. 16b. La figlia della nostra maestra di matematica vuole giocare con il cane che ha visto allo zoo.

17a. La mamma dice sempre di non indicare con il dito perché è scortese. 17b. La bambina vuole il giocattolo che si trova in alto ed usa il dito per indicarlo alla mamma.

18a. Il cameriere al ristorante mi ha chiesto se preferisco la carne o il pesce per cena stasera. 18b. Tra i tanti cibi che mangio volentieri il pesce è quello che amo di meno.

19a. Per coprire le orecchie e la testa quando fa freddo, la mamma ci fa mettere il cappello di lana. 19b. Mentre cercava di pulire l'armadio nel corridoio, ha trovato il cappello nella scatola di scarpe.

20a. Il bimbo sente un animale che ruggisce, vede una criniera gialla, e poi si trova davanti il leone con I cuccioli. 20b. Se ha paura, al bimbo piace dormire con il leone di peluche.

21a. Per essere sicura di truccarsi bene, la ragazza usa lo specchio che ha appeso sul muro 21b. La madre si è dimenticata che aveva lasciato lo specchio sul pavimento.

22a. Il porcino nella cucina italiana è il fungo più amato.

213

22b. Il papà mi dice che in montagna c'è il fungo che gli piace di più.

23a. Per proteggere il parquet della sala da pranzo, abbiamo comprato il tappeto irlandese. 23b. Poiché si è rotto quello che aveva prima, la nonna ha comprato il tappeto nuovo perché abbiamo sporcato quello vecchio.

24a. Per mangiare la minestra, si utilizza il cucchiaio e non la mano. 24b. Il professore era in ritardo ed ha dimenticato il cucchiaio e non poteva mangiare la minestra.

25a. Per attraversare il fiume, si deve passare sopra il ponte fatto di legno. 25b. A volte in vacanza in montagna vedo il ponte fatto per attraversare l'acqua.

26a. Il bambino sente il rumore di un'animale che fa le fusa e arriva il gatto del suo vicino. 26b. Il papà e il suo giovane figlio escono al mattino e vedono il gatto del nostro vicino.

27a. Nel giardino della zia la ragazza ha raccolto il fiore, che le piaceva di più. 27b. Ieri passando davanti a una vetrina ho notato il fiore appassito sulla giacca del manichino.

28a. Ai bambini non piace il sapore aspro che ha il limone nell'acqua. 28b. Al supermercato la donna vede che il limone è in saldo.

29a. La signora mette fuori la trappola con un pezzo di cibo per prende il topo che ha visto in cucina. 29b. A volte in campagna quando non c'è nessuno si vede il topo che mangia le briciole.

30a. Ogni mattina il politico beve il caffè leggendo il giornale di Francoforte. 30b. La mattina, il pensionato seduto sul balcone, ha messo il giornale sulla sedia, dopo averlo letto.

31a. Per lavarsi le mani si usa il sapone che sta sul lavandino. 31b. Nel mio lavoro a volte mi accorgo che per molte persone il sapone è un prodotto ancora sconosciuto.

32a. Nell'angolo c'è la ragnatela che ha fatto il ragno per prendere gli insetti. 32b. Quando era bambino andava spesso all'appartamento dei suoi zii perché amava tantissimo il ragno che viveva nel loro terrario.

33a. Per mandare un pacco in America, ci si deve attaccare il francobollo più costoso.

214

33b. Camminando per strada, la signora ha trovato sul marciapiedi il francobollo per mandare la posta in America.

34a. A questo incrocio c’è sempre stato solo lo stop, ma adesso hanno aggiunto anche il semaforo per maggiore sicurezza. 34b. Ieri pomeriggio ero sulla statale 16 quando non avendo visto il semaforo ho quasi investito un pedone.

35a. L'oggetto più brillante che si vede nel cielo è il sole che splende sempre 35b. Alla studentessa piace far vedere alla maestra il sole che brilla nel cielo.

36a. Lo strumento che si suona con l'archetto è il violino, giusto? 36b. Nell'angolo della stanza di mia figlia c'è il violino che non suona mai.

37a. La strega cattiva che viveva nei boschi ha dato a Biancaneve la mela velenosa. 37b. Oggi vado con il mio amico al supermercato in piazza per comprare la mela per fare la torta

38a. Dal portico del mio appartamento al mare vedo la spiaggia con tutti gli ombrelloni. 38b. Alla fine della strada vicino al parco si trovano anche la spiaggia ed il mare.

39a. Per tenere su i pantaloni troppo grandi, ci si mette la cintura di pelle. 39b. La maestra d'inglese dice che bisogna mettere la cintura quando si è in viaggio.

40a. Il bambino corre nel prato e con la reticella cerca di prendere la farfalla che vola via. 40b. Da piccolo volevo essere sempre la farfalla perché amavo tanto i colori.

41a. Per aprire il cancello del cortile, la mamma prende la chiave dalla sua tasca. 41b. Ieri sera mia madre mi ha telefonato molto tardi, perché aveva lasciato la chiave della villa in ufficio.

42a. Oggi per comunicare si manda l'email, anni fa si usava la posta per mandare la lettera per posta. 42b. Ogni giorno torno da scuola e cerco la lettera che mi ha mandato la nonna.

43a. Nel 1969 gli astronauti americani hanno visitato la luna per la prima volta. 43b. Nella sua stanza, seduta sulla sedia, la donna disegna spesso la luna perché la trova bella.

44a. La maestra dice sempre che se facciamo degli sbagli è meglio scrivere con la matita cosi si possono cancellare.

215

44b. Mia figlia non riusciva più a trovare la matita perché era nascosta sotto il divano.

45a. Durante un lungo periodo di siccità, si spera che la pioggia torni presto. 45b. Dalla sua stanza nell'appartamento della nonna, lo studente vede la pioggia e il fulmine.

46a. Invece di mettersi il vestito, per dare la presentazione la ragazza si e messa la gonna e la giacca. 46b. La commessa del negozio in centro ha venduto la gonna per 50 euro.

47a. I Re Magi raggiunsero la capanna seguendo la stella cometa. 47b. La bimba vuole che la mamma le dia la stella da appendere nella sua stanza.

48a. Il treno rapido proveniente da Milano raggiunge la stazione di Roma alle sette. 48b. Mi sono perso e allora chiedo al passante indicazioni per la stazione centrale.

49a. Le persone a cui piace pedalare usano spesso la bicicletta per andare in giro. 49b. Per il suo compleanno, la mamma le ha regalato la bicicletta ed il casco.

50a.Quando si compiono i 18 anni, si prende la patente per guidare la macchina dei genitori. 50b. La gente mi invidia perché la macchina che ho comprato è molto costosa.

51a. Il cristianesimo usa come simbolo del suo credo la croce, al contrario di altre religioni. 51b. La maestra della nostra classe ci chiede di farci la croce prima di mangiare.

52a. Chi non vuole pagare l'affitto deve comprare la casa che gli piace di più. 52b. Alla fine della strada dove c'è il parco, c'è anche la casa dove abita la mia amica.

53a. Durante la stagione d'autunno, dal ramo cade la foglia rossa e quella gialla. 53b. Alla base del cespuglio durante l'inverno, c'è sempre la foglia che è caduta durante l'autunno.

54a. Per legare le riviste, il giornalaio usa la corda che ha comprato ieri. 54b. Quando si va in barca a vela, si usa la corda per fare i nodi necessari.

55a. L'animale che aiuta il pastore insegue la pecora che si è persa.

216

55b. Nel prato davanti alla scuola durante l'inverno, non vedo la pecora che si trova il resto dell'anno.

56a. L'avvocato usa il ferro per stirarsi la camicia prima di andare al lavoro. 56b. Per andare all'oratorio, la mamma insiste che il bimbo si mette la camicia e la cravatta.

57a. Quando si va in campeggio, se uno non vuole dormire fuori, deve portare la tenda con sé. 57b. Appena esco al mattino, vedo nel giardino la tenda che ha lasciato il mio amico.

58a. Tra le invenzioni più significative nella storia dell'umanità la ruota rappresenta sicuramente la più importante. 58b. Ieri si è fermato il camion sull'autostrada e ho dovuto cambiare la ruota posteriore destra.

59a. Per far uscire l'odore di acciuga dalla cucina, la cuoca apre la finestra sopra il lavandino. 59b. Alla mamma felice della mia amica piace aprire la finestra quando non nevica.

60a. Adesso che il bimbo è troppo grande per la culla, per dormire i genitori gli hanno comprato il letto dell'Ikea. 60b. La mamma è tornata dal negozio con il letto nuovo.

61a. La studentessa chiese al bibliotecario se la poteva aiutare a trovare il libro per il suo progetto. 61b. Quando vado in vacanza con la mia famiglia porto sempre il libro da leggere sotto l'ombrellone.

62a. La bimba va a piedi al panificio per comprare il pane per cena. 62b. A cena la mamma dà a me e a mia sorella il pane con la zuppa.

63a. Il ragazzo cerca di chiamare sua mamma mentre è in vacanza, ma senza campo non riesce ad usare il cellulare che aveva comprato apposta. 63b. Ieri pomeriggio dopo una lunga attesa ho ricevuto finalmente per posta il cellulare che avevo ordinato da Amazon.

64a. Nel bosco, per tenere gli animali lontani, il boscaiolo accende il fuoco vicino al cibo. 64b. Da lontano appena attraversa il fiume, l'uomo vede il fuoco che ha bruciato tutto il paese.

65a. Per bere dell'acqua, il bimbo prende dalla credenza il bicchiere di vetro. 65b. Quando la vado a trovare, la nonna ha sempre il bicchiere di vino in mano.

217

66a. La nonna ha dei dolori al petto, forse le fa male il cuore quindi va dal dottore. 66b. Quando mio figlio era molto triste disegnava sempre sul suo quaderno il cuore di colore nero.

67a. Nel medioevo, non si usavano i mezzi di trasporto con il motore ma le persone cavalcavano il cavallo per andare in giro. 67b. Quando andiamo in montagna, nel prato a volte si vede il cavallo che mangia l'erba.

68a. Per tagliare la bistecca, la mamma usa il coltello affilato. 68b. Nel cassetto a destra vicino al computer puoi trovare il coltello per la bistecca.

69a. Nella tenuta di famiglia, nel fango grugnisce il maiale che dorme bene. 69b. Il mio collega di lavoro in una gita in campagna ha visto il maiale del fattore scapare dal recinto.

70a. Per andare a dormire, si mette la testa sopra il cuscino e le gambe sotto la coperta. 70b. Dal negozio in centro, la mamma ha appena comprato il cuscino nuovo per il divano.

71a. L'animale che mette le castagne nei buchi per prepararsi per l'inverno è lo scoiattolo che si vede nei parchi americani. 71b. Al bimbo con i capelli rossi piace un sacco lo scoiattolo perché ha la coda buffa.

72a. Ho imparato a scuola che la forma che ha tre lati è il triangolo e a volte sono di dimensioni uguali. 72b. Oggi, la maestra ci ha detto di disegnare prima il triangolo e poi il quadrato.

218

Appendix E: Italian Filler Sentences (High (HC) and Low (LC) Constraint) & Comprehension Questions

73. Tutti i turisti che vanno in America dicono che New York sia la città più bella cha abbiano mai visto. (HC) Comprehension: I turisti pensano che New York sia la città più bella?

74. Questa mattina il cielo era blu, poi questo pomeriggio è diventato scuro perché lo ha coperto la nuvola grigia. (HC) Comprehension: La nuvola copre il sole?

75. Per scrivere prima che esistessero le penne, si usavano l'inchiostro e la piuma di un cigno. (HC) Comprehension: Si usava la piuma di cigno per scrivere?

76. Mentre era al mercato, l’uomo ha comprato per sua madre la collana che ha visto in mostra in vetrina. (LC) Comprehension: L'uomo ha comprato il braccialetto al mercato?

77. La donna stanca che tornava dal lavoro si è dimenticata la borsa sull'autobus. (LC) Comprehension: La donna si è ricordata la borsa?

78. A volte quando visito la scuola materna, vedo la lacrima cadere dall'occhio di un bimbo. (LC) Comprehension: Visito la scuola superiore?

79. Nei bouquet per il matrimonio si può sempre trovare l'ape che cerca il polline da mangiare. (LC) Comprehension: Si trova l'ape nei bouquet?

80. Per cena a Natale a volte mangiamo l'anatra con il riso. (LC) Comprehension: Si mangia l'anatra per Natale?

81. Nel lago del parco di Monza a volte si vede l'oca con altri animali. (LC) Comprehension: Si trova l'oca nel parco di Monza?

82. Anche se non le piacciono il mandarino e la clementina, alla bimba piace mangiare l'arancia comunque. (HC) Comprehension: Alla bimba piace mangiare il mandarino?

83. Quando andiamo al parco, il bimbo mi chiede di spingere l'altalena per ore. (HC)

219

Comprehension: Al bimbo piace lo scivolo?

84. Al mare ai bimbi piace cercare di saltare sopra l'onda prima che li bagni. (HC) Comprehension: Ai bimbi piace quando l'onda li bagna?

85. Il signore anziano per camminare e sostenersi, usa il bastone di legno. (HC) Comprehension: Il signore anziano usa il bastone per camminare?

86. La forma senza angoli è il cerchio perfetto che è difficile da fare. (HC) Comprehension: Il cerchio è difficile da disegnare?

87. La mamma a volte mangia per cena il coniglio, ma a me non piace. (LC) Comprehension: La mamma mangia l'agnello per cena?

88. Mentre il dottore era in vacanza ha comprato il tavolo perché era molto economico. (LC) Comprehension: Ha comprato la sedia mentre era in vacanza il dottore?

89. Per visitare la nonna, la famiglia va in ferrovia per prendere il treno per andare in Liguria. (HC) Comprehension: Abbiamo preso il treno?

90. Per fortuna nel bosco vicino a dove abito io non c'è il lupo grigio e bianco. (LC) Comprehension: Nel bosco c'è il lupo?

91. Winnie the Pooh è l' a c orso ui piace mangiare il miele. (HC) Comprehension: A Winnie the Pooh non piace il miele?

92. Di mattino si sente cantare dal balcone l'uccello che si trova in giardino. (HC) Comprehension: L'uccello canta nella gabbia?

93. Dopo cena per rendere felice l'animale, si può dargli l'osso bianco di plastica per giocare. (LC) Comprehension: L'animale gioca con l'osso bianco?

94. I bambini dell'oratorio in centro giocano con l'aquilone quando c'è abbastanza vento. (LC)

220

Comprehension: I bambini giocano con l'aquilone quando c'è vento?

95. Se sono stata brava, la mamma mi lascia provare l'anello che le ha dato il papà. (LC) Comprehension: La mamma mi lascia provare l'anello se sono brava?

96. Nel parco vicino alla scuola, la quercia è l'albero più grande. (HC) Comprehension: La quercia è l'albero più piccolo?

221

Appendix F: Language Background Questionnaire for Experimental Groups

BIOGRAPHISCHER FRAGEBOGEN

In diesem Fragebogen werden Fragen über Ihre Erfahrungen mit Ihrer Muttersprache und Fremdsprachen gestellt. Sie können zusätzliche Informationen hinschreiben, wenn Sie glauben, dass sie hilfreich wären. Alle Antworten werden vertraulich gehandhabt.

Teilnehmer/in # [ ] Geschlecht: M ☐ W ☐

1. Wie alt sind Sie? [ ]

2. Haben Sie normale Sehkraft? Ja ☐ Nein ☐ Wenn nein, tragen Sie eine Brille oder Kontaktlinsen, um Ihre Sehkraft zu verbessern? Ja ☐ Nein ☐

3. Wo sind Sie geboren (Stadt, Provinz, Land)? [ ]

4. Wo sind Sie aufgewachsen (Stadt, Provinz, Land)? [ ]

5. Wo wohnen Sie jetzt? Wie lange wohnen Sie schon hier (Monate)? [ ]

6. Was studieren/studierten Sie als Hauptfach? Wenn Sie nicht studiert haben, was machen Sie beruflich? [ ]

7. Ist Deutsch (inkl. Dialekt) Ihre Muttersprache? Ja ☐ Nein ☐ 7a. Wenn nicht, was ist Ihre Muttersprache? [ ]

8. Sprechen Sie auch Dialekt (Südtirolerisch/Welche)? Ja ☐ Nein ☐

9. Sprechen Sie Italienisch? Wenn Sie mit JA antworten, antworten Sie bitte auch Frage 9a-9e. Wenn Sie mit NEIN antworten, gehen Sie bitte auf Frage 10. Ja ☐ Nein ☐

9a. Beschreiben Sie bitte, wie Sie Italienisch gelernt haben. [ ]

9b. Wie alt waren Sie, als Sie angefangen haben, Italienisch zu lernen? Wenn Sie Italienisch erst in der Schule gelernt haben, lassen Sie diese Frage leer und gehen Sie zur Frage 9c. [ ]

9c. Wie alt waren Sie, als Sie angefangen haben, Italienisch in der Schule zu lernen? [ ]

222

9d. Wann haben Sie angefangen, Italienisch regelmässig zu sprechen/hören/lesen/schreiben (besonders außerhalb der Schule)? [ ]

9e. Haben Sie eine italianische Schule oder eine deutsche Schule besucht? [ ]

10. Welche Fremdsprachen (außer Italienisch) sprechen Sie? [ ]

11. Wie alt waren Sie, als Sie begonnen haben, diese Fremdsprachen zu lernen? („beginnen zu lernen“ = erster Kontakt für länger als 6 Monate, oder wann Sie begonnen haben, diese Fremdsprache in der Schule bzw. an der Uni zu lernen). Wo haben Sie diese Fremdsprachen gelernt? (z.B. zu Hause, in der Schule, im Ausland, unter Freunden) Italienisch Wie alt? [ ] Wo? [ ] 3. Sprache [ ] Wie alt? [ ] Wo? [ ] 4. Sprache [ ] Wie alt? [ ] Wo? [ ] 5. Sprache [ ] Wie alt? [ ] Wo? [ ] 6. Sprache [ ] Wie alt? [ ] Wo? [ ]

12. Auf einer Skala von 1 (am wenigsten Mutterspracheniveau) bis 10 (am ehesten Mutterspracheniveau), wie schätzen Sie Ihre mündliche Kompetenz in diesen Sprachen, inklusive Ihrer Muttersprache, ein.

SPRACHEN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Deutsch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Italienisch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ [3. Sprache] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ [4. Sprache] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ [5. Sprache] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ [6. Sprache] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

13. Auf einer Skala von 1 (am wenigsten Mutterspracheniveau) bis 10 (am ehesten Mutterspracheniveau), wie schätzen Sie Ihre Lesekompetenz in diesen Sprachen, inklusive Ihrer Muttersprache, ein.

SPRACHEN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Deutsch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Italienisch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ [3. Sprache] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ [4. Sprache] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ [5. Sprache] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

223

[6. Sprache] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 14. Auf einer Skala von 1 (am wenigsten Mutterspracheniveau) bis 10 (am ehesten Mutterspracheniveau), wie schätzen Sie Ihre Schreibkompetenz in diesen Sprachen, inklusive Ihrer Muttersprache, ein.

15. Auf einer Skala von 1 (am wenigsten Mutterspracheniveau) bis 10 (am ehesten Mutterspracheniveau), wie schätzen Sie Ihre Kompetenz, diese Sprache beim Sprechen zu verstehen (d.h. Hörverständnis), inklusive Ihrer Muttersprache, ein.

16. Auf einer Skala von 1 (am wenigsten Mutterspracheniveau) bis 10 (am ehesten Mutterspracheniveau), wie schätzen Sie Ihre grammatische Kompetenz in diesen Sprachen, inklusive Ihrer Muttersprache, ein.

224

17. Auf einer Skala von 1 (am wenigsten Mutterspracheniveau) bis 10 (am ehesten Mutterspracheniveau), wie schätzen Sie Ihre Kompetenz im Bereich des Wortsschatzes in diesen Sprachen, inklusive Ihrer Muttersprache, ein.

18. Auf einer Skala von 1 (am wenigsten Mutterspracheniveau) bis 10 (am ehesten Mutterspracheniveau), wie schätzen Sie Ihre allgemeine Kompetenz in diesen Sprachen, inklusive Ihrer Muttersprache, ein.

19. Wie lange haben Sie insgesamt Ihre Fremdsprachen in der Schule (bzw. an der Uni) gelernt (Monate)?

Italienisch [ ] 3. Sprache [ ] [ ] 4. Sprache [ ] [ ] 5. Sprache [ ] [ ]

20. In der Tabelle unten weisen Sie auf Ihre Verwendung von Deutsch, Italienisch und Ihren anderen Fremdsprachen in den letzten 6 Monaten hin. Die Prozente sollten zusammen auf 100% kommen.

Sprache 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Deutsch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Italienisch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Sonstige[ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ]

225

21. Wo haben Sie in den letzten 6 Monaten Deutsch (inkl. Dialekt) am häufigsten benutzt? Kreuzen Sie alle treffenden Antworten.

zu Hause ☐ beim Studium ☐ bei der Arbeit ☐ mit Freunden ☐ sonstwo ☐ (wo? [ ])

22. Wo haben Sie in den letzten 6 Monaten Italienisch am häufigsten benutzt? Kreuzen Sie alle treffenden Antworten.

zu Hause ☐ beim Studium ☐ bei der Arbeit ☐ mit Freunden ☐ sonstwo ☐ (wo? [ ])

23. Wie oft (im Prozent) sprechen Sie insgesamt Deutsch und Italienisch, wenn Sie in Bozen bzw. Salzburg/Wien sind?

Sprache 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Deutsch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Italienisch ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Sonstige [ ] ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

24. Wie lange schauen Sie täglich fern? Deutsch: weniger als 1 Stunde ☐ 1-2 Stunden ☐ 3-4 Stunden ☐ 4+ Stunden ☐ Italienisch: weniger als 1 Stunde ☐ 1-2 Stunden ☐ 3-4 Stunden ☐ 4+ Stunden ☐

25. Wie oft lesen Sie eine Zeitung, eine Zeitschrift oder ein Buch auf Deutsch bzw. Italienisch? Deutsch: nie ☐ einmal pro Woche ☐ mehr als einmal pro Woche ☐ Italienisch: nie ☐ einmal pro Woche ☐ mehr als einmal pro Woche ☐

26. Wie oft sprechen Sie mit deutschen bzw. italienischen Muttersprachlern? Deutsch: fast nie ☐ manchmal ☐ oft ☐ sehr oft ☐ Italienisch: fast nie ☐ manchmal ☐ oft ☐ sehr oft ☐

27. Wie oft schreiben Sie auf Deutsch bzw. auf Italienisch? Deutsch: fast nie ☐ manchmal ☐ oft ☐ sehr oft ☐ Italienisch: fast nie ☐ manchmal ☐ oft ☐ sehr oft ☐

226

Für Fragen 28 – 32 wählen Sie eine Zahl zwischen 0 – 6: 0 heißt „das stimmt für mich gar nicht“ und 6 heißt „das stimmt für mich total.“

28. Wenn ich einen Satz auf Deutsch beginne, wechsele ich oft ins Italienische. 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐

29. Wenn ich einen Satz auf Italienisch beginne, wechsele ich oft ins Deutsche. 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5☐ 6 ☐

30. Ich entlehne oft ein italienisches Wort, wenn ich auf Deutsch spreche. 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐

31. Ich entlehne oft ein deutsches Wort, wenn ich auf Italienisch spreche. 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐

32. Normalerweise beim Sprechen mische ich Deutsch und Italienisch. 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐

33. Schreiben Sie alle Ihre Auslandserfahrungen auf (für eine Dauer von 4 Monaten oder länger).

Wo von-bis zu welchem Zweck (für das Studium, für die Arbeit, usw.)

1. [ ] [ ] [ ] 2. [ ] [ ] [ ] 3. [ ] [ ] [ ] 4. [ ] [ ] [ ] 5. [ ] [ ] [ ]

34. Haben Sie irgendwelche sonstige Information, die möglicherweise für diese Forschung hilfreich wäre (zB: Haben Sie Familienmitglieder, die andere Sprachen sprechen? Haben Sie eine ungewöhnliche Erfahrung mit Sprachen?)? Wenn nicht, können Sie diese Frage leer lassen. [ ]

227

Vita Courtney Johnson Fowler

EDUCATION 2011-present Ph.D. in German Applied Linguistics and Language Science, The Pennsylvania State University 2006 M.A. in German Studies, Bowling Green State University 2004 B.A. in International Studies and German Studies, Bowling Green State University

SELECTED GRANTS AND AWARDS 2014-2016 National Science Foundation Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, BCS- 1423779 2014-2015 Fulbright – Mach Research Grant to Austria 2014 Language Learning Dissertation Grant 2013 Adele Miccio Travel Award for travel to the University of Granada, Spain 2013 RGSO Dissertation Support Grant, College of Liberal Arts at Penn State

PUBLICATIONS Jackson, C. N., Johnson Fowler, C., Gavin, B., & Henry, N. Zusammenhänge zwischen der Sprachverarbeitung und de m Erwerb neuer Strukturen bei erwachsenen L2 Lernern. In S. Schimke & H. Hopp (Eds.), Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitspracherwerb. Amsterdam: De Gruyter. Johnson Fowler, C., & Jackson, C. N. (2017). Facilitating morphosyntactic and semantic prediction among second language speakers of German. Manuscript submitted for publication.

SELECTED PRESENTATIONS Johnson Fowler, C. (2017, March). The role of language environment on the retrieval of lexical vs. grammatical information in a sentence context among bilinguals. Poster presented at the 30th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Cambridge, MA. Johnson Fowler, C. (2016, September). The effect of language use on cross-language interaction in German-Italian bilinguals. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Second Language Research Forum, New York City, NY. Johnson Fowler, C. & Jackson, C. N. (2016, March). Morphosyntactic and semantic prediction in L1 and L2 speakers of German. Poster presented at the 29th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Gainesville, FL. Johnson Fowler, C. (2015, October). Cross-language interaction of grammatical gender in South Tyrolean German-Italian bilinguals. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Second Language Research Forum, Atlanta, GA. Johnson Fowler, C. & Jackson, C. N. (2013, October). What role does grammatical gender play during L2 sentence processing? Poster presented at the International Conference on Multilingualism, Montreal, Canada. Johnson Fowler, C. & Jackson, C. (2013, April). Exploring grammatical gender in the L2: Can L2 German speakers use gender cues in a native-like way? Paper presented at the 19th German Linguistics Annual Conference, Buffalo, NY.