Content uploaded by Anastasia Sorokina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anastasia Sorokina on Feb 01, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rllj20
The Language Learning Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20
Embracing bilingualism: L1 retention amidst L2
acquisition
Anastasia Sorokina & Raymond Mugno
To cite this article: Anastasia Sorokina & Raymond Mugno (31 Jan 2024): Embracing
bilingualism: L1 retention amidst L2 acquisition, The Language Learning Journal, DOI:
10.1080/09571736.2024.2309184
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2024.2309184
Published online: 31 Jan 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Embracing bilingualism: L1 retention amidst L2 acquisition
Anastasia Sorokina
a
and Raymond Mugno
b
a
Department of World Languages and Literatures, TESOL Program, Southern Connecticut State University, New
Haven, CT, USA;
b
Department of Mathematics, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT, USA
ABSTRACT
In L1 attrition research, it’s recognized that a previously acquired language
can transform under the inuence of a newly acquired one. However, the
precise L1-L2 relationship is intricate and warrants further study. Some
research suggest that L2 mastery might reduce L1 proficiency, while others
show that both languages can be maintained. Age of onset and L1 use are
the factors that have been discussed in the debate surrounding L1
attrition. The study aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion by
examining L1 and L2 proficiency of Russian-English bilingual speakers (N =
35). The participants with comparable L2 proficiency but various degrees
of L1 attrition who arrived at dierent ages and diered in their frequency
of L1 use were recruited for the study. This diverse group provided an ideal
quality sample for investigating the role of age of onset and L1 use, as well
as the interplay between L1 and L2. By comparing L1 and L2 lexical
diversity, syntactic complexity, and uency, the study revealed that higher
L2 proficiency was not associated with lower levels of L1 proficiency,
suggesting that L1 retention is possible amidst L2 acquisition. L1 use
played a more significant role in the L1 maintenance of these bilingual
individuals.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 21 November 2023
Accepted 14 January 2024
KEYWORDS
L1 attrition; bilingualism; age
of onset; L1 use; L1
maintenance
First language (L1) attrition has been traditionally interpreted as a gradual reduction or weakening of a
previously mastered language (Schmid and Köpke 2019). However, some believe that L1 attrition
involves the transformation of the L1 linguistic system under the inuence of an L2 (Hicks and Domín-
guez 2020; Steinhauer and Kasparian 2020; also, in this issue). Bilingual individuals who are away from an
L1-speaking community and are acquiring an L2, may experience diculties in accessing lexical items
and producing uent utterances, or may exhibit optionality of grammatical features (Kim and Starks
2008; Schmid and Yilmaz 2021). While some speakers may experience a significant loss of their first
language (Isurin 2000), others appear to maintain their proficiency (Montrul 2013). This variation in L1
attrition levels has prompted investigation of the factors that may inuence language loss. Previous
research has highlighted various considerations that may inuence L1 attrition, including L1 use or
contact (Kasparian 2015; Kim and Kim 2022; Opitz 2010), length of residence (Badstubner 2011;
Mehotcheva and Mytara 2019; Schoofs 2013), level of education (Isurin 2012; Schmid 2011), attitudes
or motivation (Schmid 2002), and language aptitude (Bylund and Ramírez-Galan 2014) among others.
1. Role of the age of onset and L1 use
Age of onset (also known as the age of arrival or age of diminished L1 input) has been extensively
investigated as one of the key variables in L1 attrition (Bylund 2009; 2019; Nicoladis and Grabois
2002; Schmid and Cherciov 2019). The significance of age of onset has been emphasised by
© 2024 Association for Language Learning
CONTACT Anastasia Sorokina sorokinaa1@southernct.edu
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2024.2309184
Bylund (2009, 2019), Schmid (2011), and Kopke and Schmid (2004) among others. It is widely
assumed that the linguistic system may undergo significant erosion if the attrition process begins
before puberty (Kopke and Schmid 2004: 9). Schmid (2002: 92) even stated that the examination
of attrition among post-pubescent individuals has not found anything comparable to early arrivals.
However, studies by Flores (2010) and Putnam and Sánchez (2013) have called into question the age
of onset factor by highlighting the importance of L1 activation. Kaltsa, Tsimpli, and Rothman et al.
(2015) demonstrated that while simultaneous and sequential Greek-Swedish bilinguals diered
from the monolingual controls, the earlier arrivals did not experience more L1 attrition in comparison
to the late arrivals. More recently, Schmid and Kopke (2017: 34) repositioned the discourse surround-
ing the age of onset factor, noting that for most individuals, susceptibility to language loss decreases
with a higher age of onset, although restructuring may occur beyond that age in some cases. Bylund
(2019: 287) reiterated that even adults may not be immune to attrition, emphasising that the age of
onset merely increases the likelihood of attrition in children.
One possible explanation for the fact that certain studies fail to clearly demonstrate age of onset
eects (Flores 2010; Kaltsa, Tsimpli, and Rothman 2015; Kim and Kim 2022; Putnam and Sánchez 2013)
may be the confounding nature of age of onset itself, as well as the complexity of language attrition as
a multifaceted process. Specifically, early age of arrival does not necessarily imply an immediate ces-
sation of L1 use since exposure to L2 may not commence right after immigration. On the other hand,
individuals who arrive at a later age may be more inclined to continue employing their L1, resulting in
a reduced likelihood of losing their first language. Consequently, age of onset may become a masking
factor for age-related variables such as L1 use (Muñoz and Singleton 2010; Schmid 2019).
To disentangle age of onset and L1 use, Karayayla and Schmid (2019) suggested that L1 attrition
researchers should perform statistical manipulation of these variables with the help of proper stat-
istical analysis. This study aims to add to the debate regarding age of onset and L1 use eects on
L1 attrition by examining how L1 proficiency is related to age of onset and L1 use. Multiple
regression analysis was conducted with L1 proficiency variables separately analysed as a response
variable. The factor variables of these models were L1 use, age of onset and their interaction (cross
product). These models helped determine which of the factor variables significantly explained the
L1 proficiency variables and if there was any interaction between L1 use and age of onset in
accounting for L1 attrition.
1.1. Relationship between L1 and L2
We have already alluded to the fact that languages in a bilingual mind may interact and aect each
other (Cook 2003, 2016); the relationship between L1 proficiency and L2 acquisition is both complex
and multifaceted. Traditionally, research on the interaction between L1 and L2 has been largely uni-
directional, exploring how a previously mastered language inuences the acquisition of a new
language (Ellis 2008; Jarvis 2000; Krish and May 2020; Ortega 2014; Wang 2014). Currently,
however, there is recognition that an L1 may undergo changes under the inuence of an L2. Pav-
lenko (2000, 2014) has long argued that an L2 may inuence an L1 in dierent domains (phonology,
morphosyntax, lexis, semantics, pragmatics, rhetoric, and conceptual representation, etc.). Chen’s
study (2006), for example, revealed that Chinese learners can demonstrate forward and backward
transfer when writing in a second language. In a study of Italian-English and Greek-English bilinguals,
Tsimpli et al. (2004) established the possibility of syntactic attrition due to the interaction between
two languages. In a similar vein, Paradis (2007) proposed a neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism
suggesting that some features of the L2, particularly those used frequently, may replace less fre-
quently used counterparts in L1.
The relationship between L2 acquisition and L1 attrition continues to be the subject of ongoing
discussion, with a central question: does higher L2 proficiency hinder L1 maintenance? Such a focus
is particularly relevant, considering arguments that support the maintenance of an L1 due to its
beneficial eects on academic performance (Cenoz and Valencia 1994), preserving cultural identity
2 A. SOROKINA AND R. MUGNO
(King and Fogle 2006), developing L2 literacy (Sparks et al. 2012), and even attaining native-like L2
(Hyltenstam et al. 2009).
The extent to which L1 can be maintained when another language is learned, and the specific
circumstances that aect this maintenance remain unclear. For instance, Bergmann and colleagues
(2016) investigated the pronunciation of L1 German speakers who emigrated to an L2 English
environment, revealing that bilingual speakers sounded less native-like than monolingual speakers
due to changes in the L1 phonological system that were induced by the L2. By contrast, a study on
two groups of L1 Korean speakers in an English immersion environment found no eects of L2
exposure on the L1 vowel system (Baker and Trofimovich 2005).
Even event-related potentials (ERP) studies that measure brain activity have not provided conclus-
ive results regarding the interplay between L1 attrition and L2 acquisition. Kasparian and Steinhauer
(2016) examined lexical access in three groups of participants: Italian migrants in Montreal, Italians in
Italy, and English native speakers who had acquired L2 Italian. According to the researchers, attriters
displayed divergent ERP patterns that were not observed in monolingual groups, suggesting that
extended L2 exposure aects L1 lexical access. The opposite has been found by Bergmann and col-
leagues (2015) who focused on morphosyntax and showed that L1 attrition does not occur when
speakers are immersed in an L2-speaking environment. In their study, monolingual speakers of
German were compared with L1 attriters of German with L2 English; they found that attriters
showed fully native-like ERP signatures for verb agreement violations and were indistinguishable
from controls in both grammatical gender circumstances. The authors considered these results to
indicate that L1 attrition was not present, and that passive language processing remains robust
even after prolonged immersion in an L2 (see Steinhauer and Kasparian 2020 for a review of ERP
studies).
Based on this literature review, it is evident that L1 attrition is a complex phenomenon that may
be triggered, among other factors, by the acquisition of an additional language. The relationship
between L1 and L2 can be explored from several angles, including whether a developed L2 inhibits
the proficiency of a previously acquired language. Most studies that have examined the relationship
between L1 attrition and L2 acquisition have focused on either lexicon, pronunciation, or morpho-
syntax alone. Following a recommendation from Yilmaz (2019: 307) who suggested focusing on all
levels of linguistic knowledge in order to provide more insight into the relationship between L1 and
L2, the present study adopts a more comprehensive approach by examining L1 lexical diversity, syn-
tactic complexity, and uency in comparison to their L2 counterparts in participants who arrived at
various ages and who are on a continuum of L1 attrition. By doing so, it seeks to determine whether
L1 can be maintained under the inuence of an L2 and whether age of onset is a decisive factor in L1
maintenance.
2. Research questions
To address the research gaps in the existing literature regarding the impact of age of onset and L1
use as well as the relationship between L1 and L2 proficiency, the following research questions are
investigated in this study:
Research Question 1: How does L2 proficiency (measured by uency, syntactic complexity, and
lexical diversity) relate to L1 retention? More specifically, is higher L2 proficiency associated with
reduced levels of L1 proficiency?
Research Question 2: What is the comparative impact of L1 use and age of onset on L1 retention?
How do these factors interact and inuence the maintenance of L1 in bilingual speakers?
1
3. Methodology
The methodology employed in this study aimed to investigate a relationship between L2 proficiency
and L1 retention and the comparative eect of L1 use and age of onset on L1 maintenance in a
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 3
group of bilingual speakers who are on a continuum of L1 attrition. To recruit speakers exhibiting
various levels of L1 retention, immigrants and international adoptees were invited to participate
via campus yers and posts on social media. The data collection included self-reported L1 and L2
proficiency and L1 use, as well as L1 and L2 speech samples. The L1 and L2 speech samples were
analysed for uency, lexical diversity, and syntactic complexity. The self-reported measures
(language use and proficiency) were gathered via an online questionnaire. The speech samples
were collected in person or via web conferencing software. All data collection was carried out by
the same Russian-English bilingual researcher. The study was vetted and approved by the IRB (Insti-
tutional Review Board).
3.1. Participants
A total of 35 participants, 12 males and 23 females, who grew up in Russian-speaking countries
(Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belorussia, Georgia, and Kazakhstan) but currently reside in the US,
took part in the study. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 33 (M = 23.3; SD = 4.4), with the
age of arrival from 5 to 15 (M = 9.2; SD = 2.6). Among the participants, 19 were immigrants and 16
were international adoptees. All participants had completed at least some college education and
were reimbursed $50 for their participation in the study.
3.2. Data collection and analysis
3.2.1. Self-reported proficiency and language use
To assess L1 and L2 language proficiency, participants completed a CanDo Scales language ques-
tionnaire, a widely utilised L1 attrition tool (Schmid 2011; 2014), where the participants rated their
level of confidence in performing various language-related tasks (see Appendix).
2
L1 and L2 use
was assessed based on questionnaire items focusing on everyday language use using a Likert
scale from 1 (never) to 4 (very frequently) (Schmid and Yılmaz 2018).
3.2.2. L1 and L2 speech samples
To capture naturally occurring speech, participants were asked to narrate picture books titled Frog,
Where Are You? and Frog Goes to Dinner (Mayer 1969) in both L1 and L2. Two-minute excerpts were
selected from the narratives (deBoer 2014). To ensure the inclusion of complete sentences, the
length of the excerpts was adjusted by +/- 10% (Spoelman and Verspoor 2010). These narrative eli-
citation sessions were recorded, transcribed, and analysed for lexical diversity, syntactic complexity,
and uency.
3.2.2.1. Fluency. Fluency refers to the smoothness and eciency with which a speaker can commu-
nicate. It relates to the ease or diculty of word retrieval, sentence formation, and pronunciation
(Housen et al. 2012). This study included measures of speed uency (i.e. speech rate) as well as break-
down uency (i.e. frequency of pauses) (Hepford 2017). Speech rate was calculated by determining
the number of words in a two-minute sample (Schmid 2011). The frequency of pauses was calculated
by dividing the total number of words by the combined number of filled (e.g. hmm, uhm, etc.) and
silent pauses. A silent pause was considered significant if it lasted more than four seconds (Tavakoli
and Foster 2011). Thus, if an excerpt contained 315 words with 21 pauses, the participant was con-
sidered to pause approximately every 15 words. Audacity software was used to process the speech
samples.
3.2.2.2. Lexical diversity. Lexical diversity is a measure of vocabulary richness, indicating the
number of unique words employed by a speaker (Jarvis and Daller 2013). The D measure, which cap-
tures the proportion of unique unrepeated words, has demonstrated eectiveness in estimating
lexical diversity (Jarvis 2002; McKee et al. 2000). To assess lexical diversity, all the excerpts were
4 A. SOROKINA AND R. MUGNO
lemmatised (i.e. all inected words were considered in their original forms) using the FREELING 4.0
software. Then, the D score was calculated utilising the Computer Language Analysis software
(CLAN).
3.2.2.3. Syntactic complexity. Syntactic complexity encompasses the speaker’s ability to employ
intricate structures instead of relying on simple forms. The measure of elaboration (i.e. number of
words per clause) was selected as it provides a comprehensive metric for investigating whether a
speaker employs complex syntactic structures (Norris and Ortega 2009). Elaboration was calculated
based on words per AS-unit, with an AS-unit representing a free speech unit that may include an
independent clause, subclausal unit, and subordinate clauses (Ellis 2008; Lintunen and Mäkilä
2014). The number of overall AS-units was also included in the analysis.
A Russian-English bilingual researcher undertook all data collection, coding, and analysis. To
ensure reliability, two additional coders independently confirmed the syntactic complexity and
uency analysis for 10% of the data. The 10% threshold aligns with the common inter-reliability stan-
dard recommended in applied linguistics (Foster and Tavakoli 2009). In cases of disagreement
between the researcher and second coders, they engaged in a discussion to reach a consensus, fol-
lowing the approach outlined by Larsen-Freeman (2006). Lexical diversity analysis was performed
using computer software and did not necessitate the involvement of a second coder.
4. Results
4.1. Overview of the data
A comprehensive dataset was compiled encompassing L1 and L2 proficiency measures, self-reported
proficiency, language use, uency (speech rate and rate of pauses), syntactic complexity (AS-units
and words per AS-unit), and lexical diversity. An overview of the dataset is provided in Table 1. Exam-
ining the minimum values and standard deviations, it is evident that participants displayed similar
levels of L2 English proficiency while exhibiting a continuum of L1 attrition.
4.2. Relationship between L1 and L2 proficiency
According to a series of Pearson correlations with Bonferroni adjustments, there was a significant
positive correlation between several L1 and L2 measures, such as speech rate, rate of pauses, and
AS-units, suggesting that a higher degree of L2 English proficiency was associated with greater L1
retention, at least as far as uency and syntactic complexity were concerned (see Table 2 for the
p and r values). There was no correlation between L1 and L2 lexical diversity or words per AS-unit
Table 1. L1 Russian and L2 English proficiency.
L1 Russian L2 English
Speech rate M = 112.7; SD = 80.9
Min = 0; Max = 239
M = 235.6; SD = 52.4
Min = 150; Max = 332
Rate of pauses M = 7.9; SD = 7.6
Min = 0; Max = 38
M = 14.6; SD = 6.4
Min = 7.9; Max = 36.9
AS-units, total M = 16.8; SD = 11.8
Min = 0; Max = 37
M = 24.09; SD = 6.1
Min = 14; Max = 41
Words per AS-unit M = 4.8; SD = 3.2
Min = 0; Max = 9.2
M = 9.9; SD = 1.5
Min = 6.9; Max = 13.8
Lexical diversity M = 40.1; SD = 28.5
Min = 0; Max = 88.65
M = 27.8; SD = 5.9
Min = 18.63; Max = 42.8
CanDo scales M = 3.2; SD = 1.3
Min = 1; Max = 4.92
M = 4.8; SD = 0.25
Min = 3.6; Max = 5
Language use M = 3.0; SD = 1.3
Min = 1; Max = 4
M = 3.9; SD = 0.2
Min = 3; Max = 4
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 5
Table 2. Relationship between L1 Russian and L2 English proficiency, significant at p < .008.
Speech rate
L1
Speech rate
L2
Rate of pauses
L1
Rate of pauses
L2
AS-units
L1
AS-units
L2
Words AS-unit
L1
Words AS-unit
L2
CanDo scales
L1
LexDiv
L1
LexDiv
L2
Speech rate L1 r1 .451* .830* .274 .962* .426 .910* −.072 .890* .879* .090
p.007 .000 .111 .000 .011 .000 .683 .000 .000 .606
Speech rate L2 r1 .443* .599* .403 .776* .279 .122 .329 .262 .191
p.008 .000 .016 .000 .104 .484 .054 .129 .271
Rate of pauses L1 r1 .558* .779* .375 .696* −.024 .696* .632* .219
p.000 .000 .027 .000 .890 .000 .000 .206
Rate of pauses L2 r1 .215 .444* .103 .070 .146 .058 .260
p.215 .008 .555 .689 .404 .742 .131
AS-units L1 r1 .469* .846* −.186 .855* .885* .131
p.005 .000 .285 .000 .000 .453
AS-units L2 r1 .226 −.496* .272 .287 .238
p.192 .002 .114 .094 .168
Words AS-unit L1 r1−.021 .895* .879* −.013
p.904 .000 .000 .943
Words AS-unit L2 r1−.007 −.097 .035
p.968 .578 .844
CanDo scales L1 r1 .868* −.016
p.000 .927
CanDo scales L2 r.258 .051
p.134 .771
LexDiv L1 r1 .031
p.859
LexDiv L2 r1
p
6 A. SOROKINA AND R. MUGNO
in L1 and words per AS-unit in L2. It is also important to note that the self-reported CanDo Scales
positively correlated with all the L1 Russian proficiency measures, strengthening arguments for
the reliability of CanDo Scales in L1 attrition research. Most importantly, there was no inverse corre-
lation between L1 and L2 proficiency, suggesting that a higher level of L2 proficiency was not associ-
ated with a greater degree of L1 attrition.
4.3. Role of the L1 use and age of onset
To examine the impact of L1 use and age of onset on L1 proficiency, multiple regression analysis
was run for each response variable listed in Table 3, with age of onset and L1 use as the factor
variables. In each case a Backwards selection technique was used with an entry value of 0.01
and an exit value of 0.05. In all cases, L1 use was included in the model and age of onset and
the cross product between L1 use and age of onset were excluded, indicating no interaction
between L1 use and age of onset. Further, the Coecient of Determinations (R
2
) for four of the
five models were over 75%, using just L1 use to predict the response variables. Only the rate of
pauses had an R
2
less than 75% of 0.492. In all cases, age of onset contributed less than 1% to
the R
2
and was not significant in predicting the response variable. In all cases, L1 use was signifi-
cant (p < .001) for predicting the response variable and all slope estimates were positive. Coe-
cients of determination given in the table are for the models with just L1 use. The first
coecient of determination of 0.803 means that 80.3% of the sample variation in speech rate
around its mean is explained by the linear regression with L1 use.
The interpretation of the slope estimate for the first response variable is that for each increase in
one point of L1 use, speech rate increases by 54.1 points on average. There are similar interpretations
for the other response variables. For example, for each increase in one point of L1 use, the rate of
pauses increased by 4.0, AS-units by 8.0, words per AS-unit by 2.2, and lexical diversity by 19.5.
Beyond the statistical analysis demonstrating no evidence for age of onset eect, we would like to
share a compelling example that emerged during data collection. Two siblings, who were adopted
from the Russian Federation by the same American family at the ages of 10 and 11, demonstrated
divergent L1 attrition patterns. One was unable to participate in an everyday conversation in L1
Russian, while the other sibling maintained some L1 Russian proficiency:
Researcher: So, you were able to keep up with your Russian. Could you tell me a little bit about it?
Participant: My sister was also adopted, so for a while, she and I … spoke Russian back and forth so that
helped. Umm, and I think on top of that I also listened to Russian music for a long period of
time. I stopped speaking Russian because we switched to English after a while. Our parents
did not want us to use Russian. But now, honestly, there is nothing really to stop me from
practising.
The two siblings arrived in an L2-speaking country at a comparable age and grew up in the same
environment where they were not expected to retain their native language. Yet, one sibling was
able to maintain his L1 Russian. Despite little support from the parents, this participant reported lis-
tening to music and reading books in L1. He even took a couple of Russian language courses at uni-
versity level. The above excerpt from the interview highlights how factors beyond age of arrival may
play a role in L1 attrition outcome.
Table 3. Regression analysis results for L1 use and age of onset.
Response variable
Coefficient of
determination
p-value
for L1 use
p-value for
age of onset
p-value
of cross product Slope estimate
Speech rate 0.803 p < .001 p = .896 p = .727 54.1
Rate of pauses 0.491 p < .001 p = .135 p = .941 4.0
AS-units 0.802 p < .001 p = .730 p = .790 8.0
Words per AS-unit 0.799 p < .001 p = .463 p = .385 2.2
Lexical diversity 0.837 p < .001 p = .053 p = .185 19.5
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 7
5. Discussion
The study investigated a relationship between L2 proficiency and L1 retention and the comparative
eect of L1 use and age of onset on L1 maintenance in a group of bilingual speakers who were on a
continuum of L1 attrition. Two main findings regarding L1 retention in bilingual speakers and the
possible importance of L1 use over age of onset are discussed below.
It has been suggested that age of onset may be a masking factor for other variables, such as L1
use as later arrivals may have more L1 exposure (Muñoz and Singleton 2010). Thus, the present study
attempted to disentangle the L1 use and age of onset through multiple regression analysis. Surpris-
ingly, age of onset was not significant in predicting L1 uency, syntactic complexity, or lexical diver-
sity. This finding challenges the assumption that age of arrival is a crucial variable in L1 attrition and
aligns with previous research that failed to demonstrate any eect for age of onset. For instance,
Kaltsa, Tsimpli, and Rothman (2015) demonstrated that while simultaneous and sequential Greek-
Swedish bilinguals diered from monolingual controls, the earlier arrivals did not experience
more L1 attrition. Steinkrauss, Lahmann, and Schmid (2017), who examined the role of age of
onset in participants who arrived between ages 7–17, also concluded that age of onset had little
eect.
The research by Kaltsa and colleagues (2015), Steinkrauss and colleagues (2017), and the findings
of the present study indicate that successful maintenance of an L1 can be inuenced by more than
age of arrival. This study has presented a compelling example of two international adoptees who
arrived at a very similar age but showed a marked dierence in L1 attrition levels. These findings
emphasise the complex reality of bilingual experience where the first language maintenance may
be a deeply individual process that is inuenced by a myriad of factors (Cherciov 2013).
While in the present study, age of onset did not emerge as a strong predictor for L1 retention, L1
use appeared to be a significant factor for all examined aspects of L1 proficiency, including uency,
syntactic complexity, and lexical diversity. These findings regarding the importance of L1 use are
consistent with some prior research (Badstubner 2011; Kasparian 2015; Schmid and Dusseldorp
2010). For instance, Kim and Kim (2022) demonstrated that L1 and L2 use were reliable predictors
for L1 attrition and L2 acquisition in Chinese-Korean and Russian-Korean bilingual speakers. Their
study showed that reduced L1 use and increased L2 exposure resulted in improved L2 proficiency
and greater L1 attrition. Schmid and Yılmaz (2018) performed a detailed discriminant function analy-
sis that investigated the eects of various types of L1 use (e.g. at work and with friends and families)
on L1 attrition, revealing that daily L1 use was a determining factor for L1 maintenance. While the
present study highlights the importance of daily L1 use for L1 maintenance, admittedly, it is still
unclear why certain individuals may decide to continue using their L1 and why some studies
have not demonstrated the significant eect of L1 use on L1 attrition (e.g. Isurin 2012; Schmid
and Yilmaz 2021; also, see Schmid 2019 for a review). These cases once again underscore the com-
plexities of L1 attrition and highlight the profoundly individual nature of bilingual experience.
In line with Bylund and colleagues (2012), who demonstrated that L1 maintenance does not
hinder acquisition of a second language, the present study did not reveal an inverse relationship
between L1 and L2 proficiency. In fact, the results showed a significant positive correlation
between several L1 and L2 measures, such as speech rate, rate of pauses, and AS-units, suggesting
that a higher L2 English proficiency was associated with greater L1 retention, particularly in terms of
uency and syntactic complexity. Similarly, Bylund and Ramírez-Galan (2014) who analysed knowl-
edge of grammar in Spanish-Swedish bilinguals revealed that the participants who had a high level
of L2 proficiency tended to be proficient in their L1, especially individuals who exhibited language
aptitude. The results of the present investigation echo the main argument of Bylund and Ramírez-
Galan’s study (2014) that proficiency in the first language does not have to be sacrificed for success-
ful L2 acquisition (e.g. Norrman and Bylund 2015). Thus, a higher level of L2 proficiency may not be
associated with a decline in L1 proficiency as previously suggested (Kim and Starks 2008; de Leeuw
et al. 2013; Pallier 2007; Stoehr et al. 2017).
8 A. SOROKINA AND R. MUGNO
It is important to note that the participants in the present study exhibited diverse linguistic
profiles with various degrees of L1 attrition. This suggests that not everyone is able to maintain profi-
ciency in both L1 and L2. Such intragroup variation is not an unusual phenomenon as illustrated in
Opitz’s study (2010) where almost half the German-Irish speakers studied exhibited balanced
language profiles with similar native-like proficiency in L1 and L2. While this finding suggests that
some bilinguals are able to maintain competence in both languages, Opitz’s research also identified
either L1-dominant or L2-dominant participants, indicating significant intragroup variation. Similarly,
participants in the present study had various language profiles reecting the intricate and multifa-
ceted nature of bilingualism and the potential for L1 attrition.
6. Conclusion
The present study explored the relationship between L2 proficiency and L1 retention and the relative
eects of L1 use and age of onset on L1 maintenance among bilingual speakers with dierent
degrees of L1 attrition. The findings help shed light on two main aspects: the possibility of L1 reten-
tion amidst L2 acquisition and the significance of L1 use over age of onset in bilingual language
development. Achieving higher L2 proficiency was not associated with a decline in L1 proficiency,
contrary to previous assumptions. Regarding the impact of L1 use and age of onset, the study
revealed that L1 use may trump age of onset, at least in the investigated participant sample. This
research contributes to the ongoing discussion regarding the interplay between L1 retention and
L2 acquisition as well as the importance of L1 use by emphasising the undeniably intricate and a
deeply individual process of language maintenance and loss.
Notes
1. This paper uses the terminology L1 attrition, L1 proficiency, and L1 retention interchangeably with an under-
standing that a lower language proficiency suggests a more pronounced L1 attrition and a lower level of L1
retention.
2. The CanDo scales were adapted from the resources available to L1 attrition researchers at The Language Attri-
tion website created by Monica Schmid http://www.let.rug.nl/languageattrition/
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Anastasia Sorokina http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7904-9154
References
Badstubner, Tina. 2011. L1 Attrition: German immigrants in the US. PhD diss. University of Arizona, USA.
Baker, Wendy, and Pavel Trofimovich. 2005. Interaction of native- and second-language vowel system(s) in early and late
bilinguals. Language and Speech 48: 1–27. doi:10.1177/00238309050480010101.
Bergmann, Christopher, Nienke Meulman, Laurie A. Stowe, Simone A. Sprenger, and Monika S. Schmid. 2015. Prolonged
L2 immersion engenders little change in morphosyntactic processing of bilingual natives. NeuroReport 26, no. 17:
1065–70. doi:10.1097/WNR.0000000000000469.
Bergmann, Christopher, Amber Nota, Simone A. Sprenger, and Monika S. Schmid. 2016. L2 immersion causes non-
native-like L1 pronunciation in German attriters. Journal of Phonetics 58: 71–86. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2016.07.001.
Bylund, Emanuel. 2009. Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning 59, no. 3: 687–715.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00521.x.
Bylund, Emmanuel. 2019. Age eects in language attrition. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition, eds. Monika S.
Schmid and Barbara Kopke, 277–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 9
Bylund, Emanuel, Niclas Abrahamsson, and Kenneth Hyltenstam. 2012. Does first language maintenance hamper nati-
velikeness in a second language? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, no. 2: 215–41. doi:10.1017/
S0272263112000034.
Bylund, Emanuel, and Pedro Ramírez-Galan. 2014. Language aptitude in first language attrition: a study on late
Spanish-Swedish bilinguals. Applied Linguistics 37, no. 5: 621–38. doi:10.1093/applin/amu055.
Cenoz, Jasone, and Jose F. Valencia. 1994. Additive trilingualism: evidence from the Basque Country. Applied
Psycholinguistics 15, no. 2: 195–207. doi:10.1017/S0142716400005324.
Chen, Fred Jyun-gwang. 2006. Interplay between forward and backward transfer in L2 and L1 writing: the case of
Chinese ESL learners in the USA. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 32: 147–196.
Cherciov, Mirela. 2013. Investigating the impact of attitude on first language attrition and second language acquisition
from a Dynamic Systems Theory perspective. International Journal of Bilingualism 17: 716–733. doi:10.1177/
1367006912454622
Cook, Vivian. 2003. Introduction. The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In The Eects of the Second Language on the First,
ed. Vivian Cook, 1–18. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, Vivian. 2016. Premises of multi-competence. In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence, eds.
Vivian Cook, and Li Wei, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
deBoer, Fredrik. 2014. Evaluating the comparability of two measures of lexical diversity. System 47: 139–45. doi:10.1016/
j.system.2014.10.008.
de Leeuw, Esther, Conny Opitz, and Dorota Lubińska. 2013. Dynamics of first language attrition across the lifespan.
International Journal of Bilingualism 17, no. 6: 667–74. doi:10.1177/1367006912454618.
Ellis, Rod. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flores, Cristina. 2010. The eect of age on language attrition: evidence from bilingual returnees. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition 13, no. 4: 533–46. doi:10.1017/S136672890999054X.
Foster, Pauline, and Parvaneh Tavakoli. 2009. Native speakers and task performance: comparing eects on complexity,
uency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning 59, no. 4: 866–96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x.
Hepford, Elizabeth A. 2017. Dynamic second language development: the interaction of complexity, accuracy, and
uency in a naturalistic learning context. PhD diss. Temple University.
Hicks, Glyn, and Laura Domínguez. 2020. Modelling L1 grammatical attrition through language acquisition: a reply to
comments. Second Language Research 36, no. 2: 231–39. doi:10.1177/0267658319897785.
Housen, Alex, Ineke Vedder, and Folkert Kuiken. 2012. Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity,
Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyltenstam, Kenneth, Emanuel Bylund, Niclas Abrahamsson, and Hyeon-Sook Park. 2009. Dominant-language replace-
ment: the case of international adoptees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, no. 2: 121–40. doi:10.1017/
S1366728908004008.
Isurin, Ludmila. 2000. Deserted island or a child’s first language forgetting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3, no. 2:
151–66. doi:10.1017/S1366728900000237.
Isurin, Ludmila. 2012. Memory and first language forgetting. In Memory, Language, and Bilingualism: Theoretical and
Applied Approaches, eds. Jeanette Altarriba and Ludmila Isurin, 319–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jarvis, Scott. 2000. Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: identifying L1 inuence in them interlanguage lexicon.
Language Learning 50, no. 2: 245–309. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00118.
Jarvis, Scott. 2002. Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19, no. 1:
57–84. doi:10.1191/0265532202lt220oa.
Jarvis, Scott, and Helmut Daller. 2013. Vocabulary Knowledge: Human Ratings and Automated Measures. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Kaltsa, Maria, Ianthi Maria Tsimpli, and Jason Rothman. 2015. Exploring the source of dierences and similarities in L1
attrition and heritage speaker competence: evidence from pronominal resolution. Lingua. International Review of
General Linguistics. Revue internationale de Linguistique Générale 164: 266–88. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2015.06.002.
Karayayla, Tuğba, and Monika S. Schmid. 2019. First language attrition as a function of age at onset of bilingualism: first
language attainment of Turkish-English bilinguals in the United Kingdom. Language Learning 69, no. 1: 106–42.
doi:10.1111/lang.12316.
Kasparian, Kristina. 2015. The case of the non-native-like first language: neurophysiological investigation of first
language attrition and second language processing. PhD diss. McGill University.
Kasparian, Kristina, and Karsten Steinhauer. 2016. Confusing similar words: ERP correlates of lexical-semantic processing
in first language attrition and late second language acquisition. Neuropsychologia 93: 200–217. doi:10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2016.10.007.
Kim, Kitaek, and Hyunwoo Kim. 2022. Sequential bilingual heritage children’s L1 attrition in lexical retrieval: age of
acquisition versus language experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25, no. 4: 537–47. doi:10.1017/
S1366728921001139.
Kim , Sun Hee Ok, and Donna Starks. 2008. The role of emotions in L1 attrition: the case of Korean-English late bilinguals
in New Zealand. International Journal of Bilingualism 12, no. 4: 303–19. doi:10.1177/1367006908098573.
10 A. SOROKINA AND R. MUGNO
King, Kendall, and Lyn Fogle. 2006. Bilingual parenting as good parenting: parents’ perspectives on family language
policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9, no. 6: 695–712.
doi:10.2167/beb362.0.
Kopke, Barbara, and Monica Schmid. 2004. Language attrition: the next phase. In First Language Attrition:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues, eds. Monika S. Schmid, Barbara Köpke, Lina Weilemar and
Keijzer Keijzer, 189–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Krish, Pramela, and Oh Chen May. 2020. A case study of L1 interference in speech acts among Chinese L2 students. 3L
The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 26, no. 1: 106–18. doi:10.17576/3L-2020-2601-08.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. The emergence of complexity, uency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of
five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27, no. 4: 590–619. doi:10.1093/applin/aml029.
Lintunen, Pekka, and Mari Mäkilä. 2014. Measuring syntactic complexity in spoken and written learner language: com-
paring the incomparable? Research in Language 12, no. 4: 377–99. doi:10.1515/rela-2015-0005.
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York, NY: Dial Books for Young Readers.
McKee, Gerard, David Malvern, and Brian Richards. 2000. Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software.
Literary and Linguistic Computing 15: 323–338. doi:10.1093/llc/15.3.323
Mehotcheva, Teodora, and Kleopatra Mytara. 2019. Exploring the impact of extralinguistic factors on L2/FL attrition. In
The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition, eds. Monika Schmid and Barbara Köpke, 349–363. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Montrul, Silvina. 2013. First language retention and attrition in an adult Guatemalan adoptee. In First Language Attrition,
eds. Monika Schmid and Barbara Köpke, 91–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Muñoz, Carmen Portero, and David Singleton. 2010. A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment.
Language Teaching 44: 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000327
Nicoladis, Elena, and Howard Grabois. 2002. Learning English and losing Chinese: a case study of a child adopted from
China. International Journal of Bilingualism 6, no. 4: 441–454. doi:10.1177/13670069020060040401.
Norris, John M., and Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case
of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30: 555–578. doi:10.1093/applin/amp044
Norrman, Gunnar, and Emanuel Bylund. 2015. The irreversibility of sensitive period eects in language development:
evidence from second language acquisition in international adoptees. Developmental Science 19, no. 3: 513–520.
doi:10.1111/desc.12332.
Opitz, Conny. 2010. L1 attrition and L2 acquisition: global language proficiency and language dominance in adult bilin-
guals. Eurosla Yearbook 10: 248–281. doi:10.1075/eurosla.10.13opi
Ortega, Lourdes. 2014. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.
Pallier, Christophe. 2007. Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. In Language Attrition:
Theoretical Perspectives, eds. B. Köpke, M. Schmid, M. Keijzer and S. Dostert, 155–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Paradis, Michael. 2007. L1 attrition features predicted by a neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. In Language Attrition:
Theoretical Perspectives, eds. Barbara Köpke, Monika S. Schmid, Merel Keijzer and Susan Dostert, 121–
133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2000. L2 inuence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11, no. 2: 17–205. doi:10.5070/
l4112005033.
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2014. The Bilingual Mind: And What It Tells Us about Language And Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Putnam, Michael T., and Liliana Sánchez. 2013. What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism 3, no. 4: 478–508. doi:10.1075/lab.3.4.04put.
Schmid, Monika. 2002. First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance: The Case of German Jews in Anglophone Countries.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmid, Monika. 2011. Language Attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, Monika. 2014. The debate on maturational constraints in bilingual development: a perspective from first-
language attrition. Language Acquisition 21, no. 4: 386–410. doi:10.1080/10489223.2014.892947.
Schmid, Monika. 2019. The impact of frequency of use and length of residence on L1 attrition. In The Oxford Handbook of
Language Attrition, eds. Barbara Köpke and Monika Schmid, 288–304. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schmid, Monika, and Mirela Cherciov. 2019. Introduction to extralinguistic factors in language attrition. In The Oxford
Handbook of Language Attrition, eds. Monika Schmid and Barbara Köpke, 267–277. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Schmid, Monika, and Elise Dusseldorp. 2010. Quantitative analyses in a multivariate study of language attrition: the
impact of extralinguistic factors. Second Language Research 26, no. 1: 125–160. doi:10.1177/0267658309337641.
Schmid, Monika, and Barbara Köpke. 2017. The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7, no. 6: 637–667. doi:10.1075/lab.17058.sch.
Schmid, Monika, and Barbara Köpke. 2019. Introduction. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition, eds. Monika
Schmid and Barbara Köpke, 267–277. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 11
Schmid, Monika, and Gülsen Yilmaz. 2021. Lexical access in L1 attrition—competition versus frequency: a comparison of
Turkish and Moroccan attriters in the Netherlands. Applied Linguistics 42, no. 5: 878–904. doi:10.1093/applin/
amab006.
Schmid, Monika, and Gülşen Yılmaz. 2018. Predictors of language dominance: an integrated analysis of first language
attrition and second language acquisition in late bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology 9: n.pag.
Schoofs, Petra. 2013. The mutual inuence of the first and second languages in German and English L1 speakers in
second language environments. PhD diss. University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Sparks, Richard L., Jon Patton, Leonore Ganschow, and Nancy Humbach. 2012. Do L1 Reading achievement and L1 print
exposure contribute to the prediction of L2 proficiency? Language Learning 62, no. 2: 473–505. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9922.2012.00694.x.
Spoelman, Marianne, and Marjolijn Verspoor. 2010. Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: a
longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31, no. 4: 532–553. doi:10.1093/applin/
amq001.
Steinhauer, Karsten, and Kristina Kasparian. 2020. Brain plasticity in adulthood—ERP evidence for L1-attrition in lexicon
and morphosyntax after predominant L2 use. Language Learning 70, no. S2: 171–193. doi:10.1111/lang.12391.
Steinkrauss, Rasmus, Cornelia Lahmann, and Monika Schmid. 2017. Accuracy and complexity in L1 attriters: age at emi-
gration versus type of continued L1 use. Paper presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
Stoehr, Antje, Titia Benders, Janet G. Van Hell, and Paula Fikkert. 2017. Second language attainment and first language
attrition: the case of VOT in immersed Dutch–German late bilinguals. Second Language Research 33, no. 4: 483–518.
doi:10.1177/0267658317704261.
Tavakoli, Parvaneh, and Pauline Foster. 2011. Task design and second language performance: the eect of narrative
type on learner output: task design and L2 performance. Language Learning 61: 37–72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.
2011.00642.x
Tsimpli, Ianthi, Antonella Sorace, Caroline Heycock, and Francesca Filiaci. 2004. First language attrition and syntactic
subjects: a study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8, no. 3:
257–277. doi:10.1177/13670069040080030601.
Wang, Zhanming. 2014. Review of the inuence of L1 in L2 Acquisition. Studies in Literature and Language 9, no. 2: n.pag.
http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/view/5721.
Yilmaz, Gülsen. 2019. L1 attrition, L2 development, and integration. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition, eds.
Monika S. Schmid and Barbara Köpke, 304–13. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Appendix CanDo scales questionnaire
Listed below are several CanDo scales. They consist of statements about your language proficiency in both Russian and
English. Please read each description carefully and circle the appropriate number to indicate whether, at the present
time, you would be able to carry out each task in the language in question. You can only circle one number per
language and per statement. Please use the following scale:
1 = I cannot do this at all
2 = I can do this, but with much diculty
3 = I can do this, although with some diculty
4 = I can do this fairly easily
5 = I can do this without any diculty at all
Listening:
I can understand everyday conversations/interactions.
II can understand movies and TV shows.
III can understand news on TV or on the radio.
IV can understand academic lectures and presentations.
V can understand telephone conversations.
VI can understand lyrics of songs.
Speaking:
I can participate in everyday conversations.
II can express my thoughts and ideas about current events.
III can present a clear and detailed argument.
IV can participate in a debate/argument on a familiar topic.
12 A. SOROKINA AND R. MUGNO
V would be able to present in front of an audience on a familiar topic.
VI can have a telephone conversation.
VII can talk to people through video chat (Skype/Face time).
Reading:
I can easily understand e-mails
II can understand newspapers
III can understand textbooks and articles
IV can understand prose (stories and novels) and poetry
V can understand social media (Face book/Twitter) language
Writing:
I can write e-mails
II can write short personal messages for my friends/relatives
III can write a report about current events
IV can write an academic essay on a familiar topic
V can express my emotions and feelings through writing
VI can write posts on social media (Face book/Twitter)
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 13
