Newcastle University

Language Attrition can be defined as the non pathological loss of a language in bilingual speakers. As such, it can be seen as a subfield of language contact, but it should be distinguished from other contact phenomena such as language change, shift, loss and death in bilingual communities: the latter typically take place in bilingual communities across generations, whereas the term ‘attrition’ is used to refer to individual language loss and consequently takes place within one generation. Furthermore, ‘attrition’ can be defined as loss of the structural aspects of language, i.e. change or reduction in form, whilst ‘shift’ is a loss of functional aspects, i.e. the gradual replacement of one language by another with respect to language use in specific situations and settings.

Recent analyses show that the factors involved in attrition are highly complex due to the interplay of linguistic, cognitive and socio-psychological aspects which can only be addressed by multidisciplinary approaches:

• Linguistic dimension: attrition is selective, affecting specific language structures preferentially and it is consequently dependent upon the structural characteristics of the languages spoken by the immigrant. From a linguistic point of view, attrition research helps to complete evidence for language universals as given by studies in language acquisition and aphasia for example.
• Cognitive and neurobiological dimension: attrition cannot be isolated from general principles of human cognition such as maturational aspects (critical period for certain aspects of linguistic acquisition, the development of memory systems, aging effects in cognition), processing mechanisms (e.g. activation, inhibition) or general cognitive skills such as memory and attention.
• Sociological and sociolinguistic dimension: attrition is favoured by many factors, some of them linked to personal attitudes and beliefs, and some to the attitudes and opinions shared and voiced by the overall society (see above). The latter will differ from migrant community to migrant community, and be determined by demographic factors, public stereotypes and prejudices, institutional representation, to name but a few.

To sum up, what is known at this point is that there are particular linguistic, cognitive and socio-psychological conditions where attrition is more likely to occur than in others. What is not yet known are the precise structural manifestations of attrition in a broad variety of languages and settings. This round table will bring together a number of specialists who study language and SLA from various theoretical perspectives applying their insights to language attrition. The participants have been selected to provide insights from a variety of fields, such as formal linguistics, contact linguistics, psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics.

Abstracts

1. Monika Schmid: opening discussion
The opening discussion will present a brief introduction to the state of the art in language attrition, and introduce points and questions relevant to the discussions at hand in the round table.

2. Michael T. Ullman: 
Language attrition and the contributions of memory brain systems to second language
Neurocognitive evidence suggests that in first language (L1), lexical knowledge depends on the declarative memory brain system, which underlies semantic and episodic knowledge, and is rooted in temporal-lobe structures; grammar in L1 relies rather on the procedural memory system, which subserves motor and cognitive skills, and is rooted in frontal/basal-ganglia circuits. In contrast, evidence suggests that in later-learned second language (L2), learners initially depend largely on declarative memory, not only for lexical knowledge, but also for the use of complex forms. However, with increasing experience L2 learners show procedural learning of grammatical rules, becoming L1-like. Importantly, because the behavioral, computational, anatomical and physiological bases of the two memory systems are reasonably well-understood, including the nature of forgetting of knowledge and skills in these systems, we can make relatively specific predictions about language, including with respect to language attrition.

3. Ianthi Maria Tsimpli
L1 attrition: a minimalist perspective
L1 attrition can be viewed as the reverse of L1 development in that in both cases, it is the native language that is involved. Moreover, L1 attrition can be viewed as the reverse of adult L2 development, on the assumption that adults differ from children in a significant, linguistic, way. The critical period hypothesis for language acquisition provides the backbone of the age factor.The minimalist architecture of the language faculty suggests a distinction between a) ‘modular’ syntactic operations and b) interface conditions sensitive to discourse-related or articulatory/perceptual properties. L1 attrition can be shown to be vulnerable with respect to L1 interface constraints which may be ‘relaxed’ if the L2 choices differ from the L1. Accordingly, in adult SLA, interface conditions are learnable given that L2 input can freely access interface levels. The question is whether ‘instability’ in interface choices is a common property of L1 attrition and L2 development alike

4. Elena Schmitt
L1 attrition and the 4-M model
The 4-M model (Myers-Scotton and Jake, 2000a and b, 2001) provides a framework for a systematic analysis of differences in the rate of L1 attrition in immigrant speakers. Specifically, the model indicates that elements underlying surface-level morphemes are accessed at different points in language production, i.e., those elements that underlie content morphemes and early system morphemes are salient at the level of mental lexicon, whereas late system morphemes that are structurally assigned are accessed at a later stage at the level of the formulator. My analysis of attrition data in children and adults demonstrates a clear correlation between the point of availability of a morpheme and its vulnerability to attrition. Evidence from other language contact phenomena and L2 acquisition in particular suggests that the 4-M Model may provide an explanation of the differentiated rate of morphological acquisition.
References:
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. (2000a). Four types of morpheme: Evidence from aphasia, codeswitching, and second language acquisition. Linguistics, 38 (6), 1053-1100.
Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. (Eds.), (2000b). Testing a model of morpheme classification with language contact data. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4 (1) (special issue).
Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. (2001). Explaining aspects of codeswitching and their implications. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One Mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 84-116). Oxford: Blackwell.

4. Barbara Köpke
L1 attrition as an illustration of control mechanisms in bilingual processing
Activation and inhibition mechanisms have been claimed to play a major role in bilingual language processing, namely in the control of language selection (Green 1998; Meuter & Allport 1999; Paradis 2004; Sharwood Smith forthc.). It will be argued that L1 attrition in adult immigrants is in most cases a processing issue arising from the difficulty to process L1 without interference from L2 and other control problems. As the L2 of the speaker is getting more and more dominant, L1 use will be affected by lack of resources due to the necessity to strongly inhibit the more highly activated and more easily accessible L2. Hence, the L1 attriter will show difficulties similar to those of the L2 learner whose problems arise not only from lack of competence but also from difficulties in the on-line processing of existing competence, as evident from variability in performance, lack of fluency, hesitation markers etc

See also Workshop on SLA and Spatial Perception on 10th September