L2 PROCESSING OF LINGUISTIC AND NONLINGUISTIC INFORMATION

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Hyunah Ahn
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Real World ◽  
First Language ◽  
World Knowledge ◽  
Linguistic Information ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract This study investigates how linguistic and nonlinguistic information interacts in second language (L2) sentence processing. Previous studies argued that L2 behaviors might stem from how L2 speakers rely more on one type of information over another. However, direct attempts have not been made to test the (dis)agreement of different information types. To fill this gap, the present study explored the integration of definiteness and real-world knowledge. Experiment 1 showed that both first language (L1) speakers (n = 34) and advanced L2 speakers (n = 49) could use definiteness to predict unmentioned referents, but intermediate L2 speakers could not (n = 35). After confirming that L1 and L2 speakers shared the same real-world knowledge, Experiment 2 (n (L1) = 36, n (L2) = 43) showed that the two groups’ behaviors differed when linguistic and nonlinguistic information had to be processed simultaneously. The findings suggest that L2 speakers can process linguistic information in a targetlike manner only in the absence of usable nonlinguistic information.

From Interlanguage grammar to target grammar in L2 processing of definiteness as uniqueness

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunah Ahn
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Real World ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Reading Time ◽  
First Language ◽  
World Knowledge ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Reading Task ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
English Articles

This study investigated the processing of English articles by second language (L2) speakers whose first language (L1) is Korean. Previous studies in L2 English article use had some issues unresolved such as using offline tasks, conflating definiteness with real-world knowledge, and operationalizing definiteness and relevant constructs in ways that participants can be primed or get metalinguistic cues. To revisit such issues, the construct ‘definiteness’ was operationalized as unique identifiability, a self-paced reading task was used to collect data, and regression models were employed to analyse logarithm residuals of raw reading time data, which can detect subtle differences that are otherwise buried. The results show that L1 speakers show sensitivity to the use of definite and indefinite articles in response to given contexts and that both advanced and intermediate L2 speakers first resort to their non-target-like Interlanguage grammar, but the advanced group later revises their initial interpretation and eventually shows the effect of target grammar. The L2 behavior is discussed in terms of its theoretical implications.

Second Language Sentence Processing

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-256
Author(s):  
Holger Hopp
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Mental Lexicon ◽  
Utility Functions ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Grammar Acquisition ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Incomplete Form

Second language (L2) sentence processing research studies how adult L2 learners understand sentences in real time. I review how L2 sentence processing differs from monolingual first-language (L1) processing and outline major findings and approaches. Three interacting factors appear to mandate L1–L2 differences: ( a) capacity restrictions in the ability to integrate information in an L2; ( b) L1–L2 differences in the weighting of cues, the timing of their application, and the efficiency of their retrieval; and ( c) variation in the utility functions of predictive processing. Against this backdrop, I outline a novel paradigm of interlanguage processing, which examines bilingual features of L2 processing, such as bilingual language systems, nonselective access to all grammars, and processing to learn an L2. Interlanguage processing goes beyond the traditional framing of L2 sentence processing as an incomplete form of monolingual processing and reconnects the field with current approaches to grammar acquisition and the bilingual mental lexicon.

Second language processing: when are first and second languages processed similarly?

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin ◽  
Laurie A. Stowe
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Grammatical Gender ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Neural Processing ◽  
Second Language Processing ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

In this article we investigate the effects of first language (L1) on second language (L2) neural processing for two grammatical constructions (verbal domain dependency and grammatical gender), focusing on the event-related potential P600 effect, which has been found in both L1 and L2 processing. Native Dutch speakers showed a P600 effect for both constructions tested. However, in L2 Dutch (with German or a Romance language as L1) a P600 effect only occurred if L1 and L2 were similar. German speakers show a P600 effect to both constructions. Romance speakers only show a P600 effect within the verbal domain. We interpret these findings as showing that with similar rule-governed processing routines in L1 and L2 (verbal domain processing for both German and Romance speakers), similar neural processing is possible in L1 and L2. However, lexically-driven constructions that are not the same in L1 and L2 (grammatical gender for Romance speakers) do not result in similar neural processing in L1 and L2 as measured by the P600 effect.

On the role of discourse-level information in second-language sentence processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELSI KAISER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Memory Retrieval ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
Level Information ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Shallow Structure

Based on a detailed review of existing studies of high-proficiency second-language (L2) learners who acquired the L2 in adolescence/adulthood, Cunnings (Cunnings, 2016) argues that Sorace's (2011) Interface Hypothesis (IH) and Clahsen and Felser's (2006) Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH) do not explain the existing data as well as his memory-based approach which posits that memory-retrieval processes in the L1 and L2 do not pattern alike. Cunnings proposes that L1 and L2 processing differ in terms of comprehenders’ ability to retrieve from memory information constructed during sentence processing. He concludes that L2 processing is more susceptible to interference effects during retrieval, and, most relevantly for this commentary, that discourse-based cues to memory retrieval are more heavily weighted in L2 than L1 processing.

scholarly journals The impact of second language immersion: Evidence from a bi-directional longitudinal cross-linguistic study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Brice ◽  
Stephen Frost ◽  
Atira S. Bick ◽  
Peter J. Molfese ◽  
Jay G. Rueckl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Immersion ◽  
Longitudinal Change ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
The Impact

AbstractBrice et al. (2019) presented data from the first epoch of a longitudinal study of the neurobiological underpinnings of first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) processing. Results showed a similar network of activation for reading across L1 and L2, as well as significant convergence of print and speech processing across a network of left-hemisphere regions in both L1 and L2 with greater activation and convergence for L2 in anterior regions, and greater activation and convergence for L1 in posterior regions of the reading network. Here, we present the first look at longitudinal changes in these effects. L2 showed relatively few changes in activation, with some shifts in the weighting between ventral and dorsal processing. L1, however, showed more widespread differences in processing, suggesting that the neurobiological footprint of reading is dynamic, with both L1 and L2 impacting each other. Print/speech convergence showed very little longitudinal change, suggesting that it is a stable marker of the differences in L1 and L2 processing.

Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
JUNG HYUN LIM ◽  
KIEL CHRISTIANSON
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Native Speakers Of English

A self-paced reading and translation task was used with learners of English as a second language (L2) to explore what sorts of information L2 learners use during online comprehension compared to native speakers, and how task (reading for comprehension vs. translation) and proficiency affect L2 comprehension. Thirty-six Korean native speakers of English and 32 native English speakers read plausible and implausible subject relative clauses and object relative clauses. Reading times, comprehension accuracy, and translations were analyzed. Results showed that L2 learners were able to use syntactic information similarly to native speakers during comprehension, and that online L2 processing and offline comprehension were modulated by reading goals and proficiency. Results are interpreted as showing that L2 processing is quantitatively rather than qualitatively different from first language processing, i.e. strategically “good enough”.

Aiming at the same target: A masked priming study directly comparing derivation and inflection in the second language

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 619-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Jacob ◽  
Vera Heyer ◽  
João Veríssimo
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Masked Priming ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Morphological Priming ◽  
Complex Forms ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: We compared the processing of morphologically complex derived vs. inflected forms in native speakers of German and highly proficient native Russian second language (L2) learners of German. Design/methodology/approach: We measured morphological priming effects for derived and inflected German words. To ensure that priming effects were genuinely morphological, the design also contained semantic and orthographic control conditions. Data and analysis: 40 native speakers of German and 36 native Russian learners of L2 German participated in a masked-priming lexical-decision experiment. For both participant groups, priming effects for derived vs. inflected words were compared using linear mixed effects models. Findings/conclusions: While first language (L1) speakers showed similar facilitation effects for both derived and inflected primes, L2 speakers showed a difference between the two prime types, with robust priming effects only for derived, but not for inflected forms. Originality: Unlike in previous studies investigating derivation and inflection in L2 processing, priming effects for derived and inflected prime–target pairs were determined on the basis of the same target word, allowing for a direct comparison between the two morphological phenomena. In this respect, this is the first study to directly compare the processing of derived vs. inflected forms in L2 speakers. Significance/implications: The results are inconsistent with accounts predicting general L1/L2 differences for all types of morphologically complex forms as well as accounts assuming that L1 and L2 processing are based on the same mechanisms. We discuss theoretical implications for L2 processing mechanisms, and propose an explanation which can account for the data pattern.

Does the shallow structures proposal account for qualitative differences in first and second language processing?

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-84
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
First Language ◽  
Qualitative Difference ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Lexical Knowledge ◽  
Second Language Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

In their Keynote Article, Clahsen and Felser (CF) provide a detailed summary and comparison of grammatical processing in adult first language (L1) speakers, child L1 speakers, and second language (L2) speakers. CF conclude that child and adult L1 processing makes use of a continuous parsing mechanism, and that any differences found in processing can be explained by factors such as limited working memory capacity and incomplete lexical knowledge. The authors then suggest that the existing differences between L1 (both adult and child) and L2 processing provide evidence that parsing mechanisms are qualitatively different between these groups. They posit that this qualitative difference between L1 and L2 is due to L2 speakers having shallower and less detailed syntactic representations than L1 speakers. This commentary focuses on discussing this shallow structures account and considers what this means for L2 processing.

scholarly journals Longitudinal Developments in Bilingual Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition of Speech: The Case of Arnold Schwarzenegger

Languages ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Lisa Kornder ◽  
Ineke Mennen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Voice Onset Time ◽  
First Language ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Dynamic Interactions ◽  
First Language Attrition ◽  
Second Formant ◽  
L1 And L2

The purpose of this investigation was to trace first (L1) and second language (L2) segmental speech development in the Austrian German–English late bilingual Arnold Schwarzenegger over a period of 40 years, which makes it the first study to examine a bilingual’s speech development over several decades in both their languages. To this end, acoustic measurements of voice onset time (VOT) durations of word-initial plosives (Study 1) and formant frequencies of the first and second formant of Austrian German and English monophthongs (Study 2) were conducted using speech samples collected from broadcast interviews. The results of Study 1 showed a merging of Schwarzenegger’s German and English voiceless plosives in his late productions as manifested in a significant lengthening of VOT duration in his German plosives, and a shortening of VOT duration in his English plosives, closer to L1 production norms. Similar findings were evidenced in Study 2, revealing that some of Schwarzenegger’s L1 and L2 vowel categories had moved closer together in the course of L2 immersion. These findings suggest that both a bilingual’s first and second language accent is likely to develop and reorganize over time due to dynamic interactions between the first and second language system.

scholarly journals Interference in Native and Non-Native Sentence Processing

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 712-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
IAN CUNNINGS
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Memory Retrieval ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Different Populations ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
L1 And L2

The primary aim of my target article was to demonstrate how careful consideration of the working memory operations that underlie successful language comprehension is crucial to our understanding of the similarities and differences between native (L1) and non-native (L2) sentence processing. My central claims were that highly proficient L2 speakers construct similarly specified syntactic parses as L1 speakers, and that differences between L1 and L2 processing can be characterised in terms of L2 speakers being more prone to interference during memory retrieval operations. In explaining L1/L2 differences in this way, I argued a primary source of differences between L1 and L2 processing lies in how different populations of speakers weight cues that guide memory retrieval.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document