Second Language Processing of Korean Floating Numeral Quantifiers

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1101-1119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunwoo Kim
2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thad Polk ◽  
Charles Behensky ◽  
Heather Pond ◽  
Stefan Frisch ◽  
Marilyn Shatz ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Reiterer ◽  
Ernesto Pereda ◽  
Joydeep Bhattacharya

This article examines the question of whether university-based high-level foreign language and linguistic training can influence brain activation and whether different L2 proficiency groups have different brain activation in terms of lateralization and hemispheric involvement. The traditional and prevailing theory of hemispheric involvement in bilingual language processing states that bilingual and second language processing is always at least in some form connected to the right hemisphere (RH), when compared to monolingual first language processing, the classical left-hemispheric language-processing domain. A widely held specification of this traditional theory claims that especially bilinguals or second language learners in their initial phases and/or bilinguals with poor fluency and less experience rely more on RH areas when processing their L2. We investigated this neurolinguistic hypothesis with differently proficient Austrian learners of English as a second language. Two groups of L2 speakers (all Austrian German native speakers), differing in their L2 (English) language performance, were recorded on electroencephalography (EEG) during the processing of spoken English language. A short comprehension interview followed each task. The `high proficiency group' consisted of English language students who were about to complete their master's degree for English language and linguistics, while the `low proficiency group' was composed of non-language students who had only school level performance and less training in English. The age of onset of L2 learning was kept constant: 9 years for both groups. To look for cooperative network activity in the brain, EEG coherence and synchronization measures were analysed for a high EEG frequency range (gamma band). Results showed the most significant group differences in synchronization patterns within the lower gamma frequency range, with more RH involvement (extensive right-hemisphere networks) for the low proficiency group, especially when processing their L2. The results can be interpreted in favour of RH theories of second language processing since, once again, we found evidence of more RH involvement in (late) second language learners with less experience and less training in the L2. The study shows that second language training (and resulting proficiency) and/or differences in ability or state of linguistic alertness can be made visible by brain imaging using newly developed EEG-synchronization techniques as a measure.


2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 799-819 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAJANI SEBASTIAN ◽  
ANGELA R. LAIRD ◽  
SWATHI KIRAN

ABSTRACTThis study reports an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of published functional neuroimaging studies of bilingualism. Four parallel meta-analyses were conducted by taking into account the proficiency of participants reported in the studies. The results of the meta-analyses suggest differences in the probabilities of activation patterns between high proficiency and moderate/low proficiency bilinguals. The Talairach coordinates of activation in first language processing were very similar to that of second language processing in the high proficient bilinguals. However, in the low proficient group, the activation clusters were generally smaller and distributed over wider areas in both the hemispheres than the clusters identified in the ALE maps from the high proficient group. These findings draw attention to the importance of language proficiency in bilingual neural representation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 702-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTON MALKO ◽  
LARA EHRENHOFER ◽  
COLIN PHILLIPS

Analyzing L2 sentence processing in terms of cue-based memory retrieval is promising. But this useful general framework has yet to become a specific theory of L1-L2 differences.


10.1075/bpa.4 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwen Patricia Dyson ◽  
Gisela Håkansson

Author(s):  
John Archibald

The distinction between representations and processes is central to most models of the cognitive science of language. Linguistic theory informs the types of representations assumed, and these representations are what are taken to be the targets of second language acquisition. Epistemologically, this is often taken to be knowledge, or knowledge-that. Techniques such as Grammaticality Judgment tasks are paradigmatic as we seek to gain insight into what a learner’s grammar looks like. Learners behave as if certain phonological, morphological, or syntactic strings (which may or may not be target-like) were well-formed. It is the task of the researcher to understand the nature of the knowledge that governs those well-formedness beliefs. Traditional accounts of processing, on the other hand, look to the real-time use of language, either in production or perception, and invoke discussions of skill or knowledge-how. A range of experimental psycholinguistic techniques have been used to assess these skills: self-paced reading, eye-tracking, ERPs, priming, lexical decision, AXB discrimination, and the like. Such online measures can show us how we “do” language when it comes to activities such as production or comprehension. There has long been a connection between linguistic theory and theories of processing as evidenced by the work of Berwick (The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance). The task of the parser is to assign abstract structure to a phonological, morphological, or syntactic string; structure that does not come directly labeled in the acoustic input. Such processing studies as the Garden Path phenomenon have revealed that grammaticality and processability are distinct constructs. In some models, however, the distinction between grammar and processing is less distinct. Phillips says that “parsing is grammar,” while O’Grady builds an emergentist theory with no grammar, only processing. Bayesian models of acquisition, and indeed of knowledge, assume that the grammars we set up are governed by a principle of entropy, which governs other aspects of human behavior; knowledge and skill are combined. Exemplar models view the processing of the input as a storing of all phonetic detail that is in the environment, not storing abstract categories; the categories emerge via a process of comparing exemplars. Linguistic theory helps us to understand the processing of input to acquire new L2 representations, and the access of those representations in real time.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwen Patricia Dyson

Abstract Research on second language acquisition has located individual variation, without clarifying whether language processing prompts learners to differ systematically in the production of syntax and morphology. To address this issue, the study examined the hypothesis on variation in Processability Theory. This theory predicts that, within second language development, individual learners vary systematically in how they respond to developmental conflicts. Specifically, learners have distinct types, which are evident in their use of options and 'trailers' (structures which emerge late). Longitudinal spoken data were collected over one academic year from six adolescent ESL learners. The results revealed different learner types in terms of syntactic options and trailers. However, the learners had less clear types for the morphological options, used unpredicted options, and lacked consistency in their use of syntactic and morphological trailers. The paper suggests that learners vary in processing due to diverse orientations towards the acquisition of either syntax or morphology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document