scholarly journals THE SPECIFICITY OF EVENT EXPRESSION IN FIRST LANGUAGE INFLUENCES EXPRESSION OF OBJECT PLACEMENT EVENTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Wojciech Lewandowski ◽  
Şeyda Özçalışkan
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Specific System ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Event Description ◽  
L2 Production ◽  
Description Task

Abstract Speakers show cross-linguistic differences in expressing placement events involving support (cup on table) and containment (apple in bowl) in first language (L1) contexts. They rely on either more-general (e.g., Spanish for support, Polish for containment) or more-specific (e.g., German, Polish for support; Spanish, German for containment) descriptions. Relatively less is known about the expression of placement events in second language (L2) production contexts. In this study, we examined object-placement event descriptions produced by two groups of L1 Polish speakers—with either German or Spanish as their L2—in comparison to monolingual speakers of German, Spanish, and Polish, using an animated event description task. Bilingual speakers showed greater effect of L1 patterns in moving from a more-general to a more-specific system and L2 patterns in moving from a more-specific to a more-general or between two more-specific systems, suggesting that the specificity of event expression in L1 influences patterns of placement expression in L2.

scholarly journals Cross-linguistic differences in prosodic cues to syntactic disambiguation in German and English

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARY GRANTHAM O'BRIEN ◽  
CARRIE N. JACKSON ◽  
CHRISTINE E. GARDNER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
First Language ◽  
Pitch Accent ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
Prosodic Cues ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L2 Production ◽  
Learning English

ABSTRACTThis study examined whether late-learning English–German second language (L2) learners and late-learning German–English L2 learners use prosodic cues to disambiguate temporarily ambiguous first language and L2 sentences during speech production. Experiments 1a and 1b showed that English–German L2 learners and German–English L2 learners used a pitch rise and pitch accent to disambiguate PP-attachment sentences in German. However, the same participants, as well as monolingual English speakers, only used pitch accent to disambiguate similar English sentences. Taken together, these results indicate the L2 learners used prosody to disambiguate sentences in both of their languages and did not fully transfer cues to disambiguation from their first language to their L2. The results have implications for the acquisition of L2 prosody and the interaction between prosody and meaning in L2 production.

Interplay between perceived cross-linguistic similarity and L2 production

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Georgiou
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Production Test ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Egyptian Arabic ◽  
Speech Learning Model ◽  
L2 Production ◽  
Partial Overlap ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Speech Learning

Abstract The present study aims to investigate the relationship between perceived cross-linguistic similarity and second language (L2) production. To this purpose, Egyptian Arabic learners of Greek in Cyprus who took part in a previous cross-linguistic perceptual study, completed a production test with respect to the Cypriot Greek vowels. The findings showed that perceived cross-linguistic similarity was linked with L2 production since along with the consideration of first language (L1)-L2 acoustic differences, it predicted most of the L2 vowel productions. Also, many L2 vowels were considerably longer than the corresponding L1 vowels. This can be interpreted as an L1 transfer since Egyptian Arabic vowels are longer in duration than the Cypriot Greek vowels. An interesting finding was that the production of the L2 vowels had only partial overlap with the productions of the L1 vowels, a finding that provides support for the hypotheses of the Speech Learning Model.

Understanding second language fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in first language fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMANDA HUENSCH ◽  
NICOLE TRACY-VENTURA
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
First Language ◽  
Oral Narrative ◽  
Language Fluency ◽  
Multiple Regressions ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
Mitigating Factors ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACTThis study examined the extent to which first language (L1) fluency behavior, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency can predict second language (L2) fluency behavior over time. English L1 Spanish (n= 24) and French (n= 25) majors completed a picture-based oral narrative in the L2 before and after 5 months residing abroad and later in the L1 after returning home. Data were coded for seven measures of speed, breakdown, and repair fluency. The results from multiple regressions indicated that L1 fluency behavior, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency differentially contributed to explaining L2 fluency behavior prior to and during immersion. These findings suggest that when investigating L1–L2 fluency relationships considerations of mitigating factors such as cross-linguistic differences are necessary, and it is worthwhile to focus on how the contributions of these factors shift during development.

scholarly journals The Influence of Second Language Experience in the Pattern of Language Processing of the Bilingual Lexicon

MANUSYA ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-95
Author(s):  
P. Sudasna ◽  
S. Luksaneeyanawin ◽  
D. Burnham
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
English Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Experience ◽  
High Group ◽  
Bilingual Lexicon ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
Thai English

The present experimental research studies whether Thai-English bilinguals’ language experience in their non-native language influences the pattern of language processing of the bilingual lexicon. Two groups of 100 native Thai bilingual speakers with high or low English language experience were asked to perform Stroop Interference Tasks, with the processing of word forms being either Thai or English and the processing in colour naming also being either Thai or English. The results showed that when the processing of word forms was in Thai, there was more intra- than interlingual interference, and that the degree of interference was equivalent between the two English experience groups. When the processing of word forms was in English, the high and the low groups showed more intra- than interlingual interference; however, the high group showed more interference than the low group did. The results provide evidence that the maximal interference occurs in the processing of the first language and the interference in the processing of the second language is proportional to L2 language experience. The results suggest that there is a relationship between language experience and language processing of the bilingual lexicon.

A sparkling apéritif or old wine in new bags?

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 748-750
Author(s):  
PIETER MUYSKEN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Social Factors ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Language Change ◽  
First Language ◽  
List Type ◽  
Type Number ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Communicative Strategies

In the keynote article “Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies” (Muysken, published online May 31, 2013; henceforth KA), I have tried to accomplish three things: (a)linking a number of fields of language contact research (code-switching, Creole studies, contact-induced language change, bilingual production), by(b)assuming four roles that the contributing languages may play ((i) first language dominant, (ii) second language dominant, (iii) neither language dominant – patterns common to the two languages, and (iv) neither language dominant – language-neutral communicative strategies), and(c)modeling these four roles in terms of bilingual optimization strategies, which may be implemented in an Optimality Theoretic (OT) framework. Bilingual strategies are conditioned by social factors, processing constraints of speakers’ bilingual competence, and perceived language distance. Different language contact outcomes correspond to different interactions of these strategies in bilingual speakers and their communities.

Second language experience influences salience of phonological units in spoken word production in the first language

2021 ◽  
pp. 136700692110310
Author(s):  
Jie Wang ◽  
Andus Wing-Kuen Wong ◽  
Hsuan-Chih Chen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Phonological Processing ◽  
Research Question ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Related Condition ◽  
Spoken Word Production ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Phonological Units

Research question: Previous research suggests that the grain size of primary phonological units (PUs) in spoken word production is language-specific (e.g., phonemic segments in Germanic languages, and atonal syllables in Chinese). When the two languages of bilingual speakers have different primary PUs in their native speakers, will first language (L1) phonological processing be influenced by second language (L2) experience? Methodology: In a picture–word interference task, native Chinese speakers who spoke English as L2 were required to say aloud the predesignated L1 name of a picture while ignoring a written L1 character superimposed on the picture. The picture name shared a certain phonological component (i.e., rhyme or atonal syllable) with the distractor in the related condition but not in the unrelated condition. Data and analysis: Data of 186 participants from eight originally independent experiments were pooled. Multiple regression analyses were conducted on subject means to investigate whether the effects of rhyme relatedness and syllable relatedness on L1 naming latency were influenced by L2 self-rated proficiency, age of acquisition (AoA), and/or years of use. Trial-by-trial data were then analyzed with linear mixed-effects modeling. Findings: Both the rhyme effect and the syllable effect increased with years of L2 use, indicating that the salience of PUs in L1 spoken word production can be influenced by L2 experience. Originality: The current study adopted a chronometric approach to investigate the influence of L2 experience on phonological processing during L1 spoken word production. Importantly, multiple aspects of L2 experience (i.e., self-rated proficiency, AoA, and years of use) were examined at the same time in a relatively large sample. Implications: The current findings provide evidence for backward transfer of primary PUs in spoken word production, which demonstrates the plasticity of the phonological encoding process in bilingual speakers. These findings are discussed and compared with cross-language transfer of phonological awareness in the discussion.

scholarly journals Processing subject–verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
NORIKO HOSHINO ◽  
PAOLA E. DUSSIAS ◽  
JUDITH F. KROLL
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
First Language ◽  
Conceptual Information ◽  
Number Agreement ◽  
Verb Agreement ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Speech Planning ◽  
Grammatical Number ◽  
The Way

Subject–verb agreement is a computation that is often difficult to execute perfectly in the first language (L1) and even more difficult to produce skillfully in a second language (L2). In this study, we examine the way in which bilingual speakers complete sentence fragments in a manner that reflects access to both grammatical and conceptual number. In two experiments, we show that bilingual speakers are sensitive to both grammatical and conceptual number in the L1 and grammatical number agreement in the L2. However, only highly proficient bilinguals are also sensitive to conceptual number in the L2. The results suggest that the extent to which speakers are able to exploit conceptual information during speech planning depends on the level of language proficiency.

scholarly journals Sentence Processing in Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers

Linguistics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola E. Dussias ◽  
Anne L. Beatty-Martínez ◽  
Michael A. Johns ◽  
Manuel F. Pulido
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Related Potentials

The main goal of monolingual models of sentence processing is to explain how the syntactic processor (or parser) assigns structure to an incoming string of words. The theoretical divide in the field has been about whether the architecture and mechanisms of the human sentence processor are modular—and computations are carried out serially—or whether it is interactive and computations are carried out in parallel. The debate about bilingual sentence processing has, instead, focused on whether bilingual speakers process their second language in a manner similar to monolingual speakers of the target language. Proposals rooted in generative approaches to language acquisition argue that adult second language (L2) learners lack access to the universal principles or the ability to reset parameters that guide language acquisition and language processing in their L2. Models grounded in neurocognitive approaches to memory hold that late bilinguals recruit different memory systems compared to native speakers of the target language. Other models have argued that differences in first and second language processing result largely from capacity differences, differences in susceptibility to interference, or lack of predictive ability. More recently, several studies have turned toward more experience-driven accounts, eschewing the earlier assumption that the first language is static and unchanging, and instead focusing on the interactive and interconnected nature of the bilingual linguistic system. These studies have revealed that not only does the first language (L1) affect L2 syntactic processing, but experience with the L2 can have ramifications for processing in the native language. A range of experimental techniques are employed to investigate how monolingual and bilingual speakers process language at the sentence level. Eye-tracking techniques allow measurement of responses, such as eye movements and pupil dilation, to study written and auditory language processing. Such measures permit insight into the cognitive processes that are engaged when individuals read written text or inspect visual scenes. Electrophysiological measures are particularly helpful for understanding the time course of neural activity associated with language and cognitive processes. Event-related potentials (ERPs) are obtained by recording and averaging across brain potentials associated with time-locked events (e.g., a word in a sentence). Electrophysiological measures are used to determine which stages of processing are affected by the experimental manipulation. Neuroimaging provides information about changes in brain structure and function. For example, the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technique can be used to visualize which brain regions are engaged in processing a particular type of sentence. Although neuroimaging is a relatively-new methodology, it holds great promise for increasing our understanding of the dynamic processes in the brain related to language. The writing of this bibliography was supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant BCS-1535124 and OISE 1545900 to Paola E. Dussias.

Analysis of Language Errors in Speakers Who Are Bilingual Under Quiet and Background Noise Conditions

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1687-1697
Author(s):  
Bruna A. Barbosa ◽  
D'Jaris Coles-White ◽  
Darah Regal ◽  
Jimmy Kijai
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Classroom Instruction ◽  
First Language ◽  
Bilingual Students ◽  
Korean Language ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Language Groups ◽  
Language Analysis ◽  
Younger Age

Purpose This study discusses the ways in which the presence of background noise may adversely affect bilingual students' ability to repeat speech, specifically, whether the presence of background noise increases lexical, grammatical, omission, and other errors on the AzBio Sentence Test. Method Participants consisted of 15 monolingual English (first language) speakers and 41 bilingual (second language [L2]) speakers from Spanish, Portuguese, and Korean language groups, ranging from students who learned English after the age of 4 years to adulthood. Participants completed the AzBio Sentence Test in both quiet and background noise environments. A language analysis was conducted, and errors were classified under categories of lexical, grammatical, omissions, and other. Results The results of this study show that L2 speakers made more lexical, grammatical, omissions, and other errors than first language speakers on the AzBio Sentence Test. In background noise, all bilingual language groups made more errors than monolinguals. Portuguese speakers notably made more omissions than other language groups. This study also shows that participants who were introduced to English at a younger age made fewer errors. Conclusions In conclusion, our results corroborate previous research, indicating that bilingual speakers have more difficulty accurately interpreting speech in the presence of background noise. These findings have implications for classroom instruction considering the statistically higher percentage of omissions made by L2 speakers.

Performance of Bilingual Speakers on the English and Spanish Versions of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT)

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. 005-017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Weiss ◽  
James J. Dempsey
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Writing Skills ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Competence Level ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test

This study compared the performance of bilingual participants on the English and Spanish versions of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). The participants were divided into an early bilingual (EB) group and a late bilingual (LB) group based on age of second-language acquisition. All participants acquired Spanish as their first language (L1) and English as a second language (L2). Care was taken to ensure that all participants demonstrated at least a "good competence level" for self-rated speaking, understanding, reading, and writing skills in both English and Spanish. Results revealed superior performance on the Spanish HINT versus the English HINT in both quiet and in noise for both groups of participants. Significant differences in performance were noted for the EB versus the LB participants. A number of possible explanations for superior performance in L1 are provided, and implications for educating students in their L2 are discussed. Este estudio compara el desempeño de participantes bilingües en las versiones en inglés y en español de la Prueba de Audición en Ruido (HINT). Se dividieron los participantes en un grupo bilingüe temprano (EB) y un grupo bilingüe tardío, con base en la edad de adquisición de la segunda lengua. Todos los participantes adquirieron el español como su primera lengua (L1) y el inglés como su segunda lengua. Se tuvo cuidado que todos los participantes demostraran al menos un "buen nivel de aptitud" auto-calificado, en las habilidades para hablar, entender, leer y escribir tanto el inglés como el español. Los resultados revelaron desempeños superiores en el HINT en español versus el HINT en inglés, tanto en silencio como en ruido, para ambos grupos de participantes. Se observaron diferencias significativas en el desempeño para los participantes del EB versus el LB. Se aporta un número de posibles explicaciones para un desempeño superior en L1, y se discuten las implicaciones para educar estudiantes en su L2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document