It remains unclear whether adult-learned second language (L2) depends on similar or different neurocognitive mechanisms as those involved in first language (L1). We examined whether English past tense forms are computed similarly or differently by L1 and L2 English speakers, and what factors might affect this: regularity (regular vs. irregular verbs), length of L2 exposure (length of residence), age of L2 acquisition (age of arrival), L2 learners’ native language (Chinese vs. Spanish), and sex (male vs. female). Past tense frequency effects were used to examine the type of computation (composition vs. storage/retrieval). The results suggest that irregular past tenses are always stored. Regular past tenses, however, are either composed or stored, as a function of various factors: both sexes store regulars in L2, but only females in L1; greater lengths of residence lead to less dependence on storage, but only in females; higher adult ages of arrival lead to more reliance on storage. The findings suggest that inflected forms can rely on either the same or different mechanisms in L2 as they do in L1, and that this varies as a function of multiple interacting factors.

El Uruguay no es una sociedad lingüísticamente homogénea hablante de español. El bilingüismo español-portugués que se consigna en una amplia zona del noreste de Uruguay es un ejemplo de esta realidad. Recientemente, y de un modo bastante innovador para la tradición de las políticas lingüísticas en el Uruguay (o para la falta de ellas), esta realidad sociolingüística ha sido tomada en cuenta con programas educativos específicos. Este artículo presenta un análisis de estos programas, sus antecedentes, objetivos y resultados preliminares, así como un análisis primario de dos documentos que constituyen actos de políticas lingüísticas en el Uruguay: la nueva Ley de Educación y el nuevo Programa de Educación Inicial y Primaria.

No abstract

This article explores the status of Uruguayan Sign Language (Lengua de Señas Uruguaya, LSU), in the context of language policies in Uruguay, as well as the specific situation of the Uruguayan Deaf communities. From 2000 to 2008 some language-policy acts (e.g., laws and other official documents) appeared in Uruguay. These statements refer mainly to education, although they also include other areas of society in both their design and their effects. In these official documents LSU is not seen as an attribute of a group of people with a handicap, and LSU speakers are not considered affected by health problems that require special educational treatment. Accordingly, LSU speakers are considered a minority group, as are speakers of Portugués del Uruguay (the Portuguese of Uruguay) or languages of immigrant groups. Thus, in the larger context of a diverse community, LSU is recognized and valued as the language of a minority group who have socially and culturally valuable backgrounds. As Uruguayan citizens, deaf people are entitled to have their community's natural language considered as one of the Uruguayan population's native languages. Uruguay does not have an official language explicitly designated by law; Spanish has always been considered as such as a consequence of habit, custom, and its status as the majority language. In fact, until the aforementioned language-policy decisions came about, Spanish was the only language used in education and by the state. In Uruguay the recognition of the existence of minority languages gives LSU a different status and opens the door for further developments that could positively affect the Deaf community. This article analyzes some of the historical processes that brought about in this change. The social visibility of LSU has grown continuously since 1983, both in education and other social sectors (e.g., public and private domains, the media). Since 1987, a bilingual education program for deaf people has been implemented in the primary schools. This program has encountered several difficulties mainly due to the fact that it was created with no connection to a more comprehensive proposal of national language policies, which in turn, left the program in the domain of policies for populations with medical handicaps. This article focuses on language policies in education. However, other aspects of public policies related to the Deaf community and LSU are also considered. The analysis presents cases of conflict and discusses the contradictions among them. Finally, the article explores the processes of standardization and social change that have affected LSU in the last few decades.