The effects of first- and second-language proficiency on conflict resolution and goal maintenance in bilinguals: Evidence from reaction time distributional analyses in a Stroop task

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 663-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHI-SHING TSE ◽  
JEANETTE ALTARRIBA
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Stroop Task ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Goal Maintenance ◽  
Attention Performance ◽  
L1 And L2

By administering a Stroop task to college-student bilinguals varied in self-rated first- (L1) and second-language (L2) proficiency, the current study examined the effects of L1 and L2 proficiencies on selective attention performance. We conducted ex-Gaussian analyses to capture the modal and positive-tail components of participants' reaction time distributions. Both L1 and L2 proficiencies were associated with a shift of reaction time distributions in incongruent trials, relative to congruent trials, and the tail size of reaction time distributions regardless of trial types. This suggests that bilinguals' L1 and L2 proficiencies could affect their Stroop performance via modulating their conflict resolution and goal maintenance abilities.

The Interaction Between Type of Contact and Type of Instruction: Some Effects on the L2 Proficiency of Adult Learners

1986 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Spada
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Adult Learners ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Combined Effects ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Class Room

This paper reports the results of a study which investigated (a) the separate effects that differences in learners' contact can have on various aspects of proficiency, and (b) the combined effects that differences in informal contact and instructional variation can have on improvement in proficiency. Forty-eight adult learners from three intermediate-level ESL classes participated in the study.To measure differences in learners' informal contact, a language contact questionnaire was administered. The results revealed both quantitative and qualitative differences in learners' out-of-class contact with the second language. When these differences were examined in relation to learners' performance on seven proficiency measures, correlational analysis revealed that while learners' performance on some measures was related to differences in amount of contact, it was related on other measures to differences in type of contact.To determine whether differences in contact interacted with instructional variation to produce differences in improvement in proficiency, learners' pre-and post-test scores were examined in relation to contact and class in an analysis of co-variance. The results indicated that learners' informal contact interacted with differences in instruction to produce variation in improvement on two proficiency measures.The findings are discussed in relation to the need for more class-room-centered research to investigate both the separate and combined effects of learner and instructional variables on second language proficiency.

The relationship between lexical competence, collocational competence, and second language proficiency

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Déogratias Nizonkiza
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Proficiency Testing ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Proficiency Test ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Lexical Competence ◽  
The University ◽  
The Relationship

This paper assesses the relationship between EFL proficiency, lexical competence, and collocational competence (cf. Meara 1996; Pawley & Syder 1983; Read 1993, 1997, 2000; Bonk 2001). Two paper-based tests, a proficiency test and a vocabulary test, were presented to English majors at the University of Burundi. Scores on both tests significantly correlate and distinguish between levels. This confirms that lexical competence is a reliable predictor of L2 proficiency, which strengthens and extends earlier findings (Meara 1996; Bonk 2001; Gyllstad 2005, 2007; Zareva et al. 2005). Furthermore, mastery of collocations is found to be related to frequency and to predict lexical competence. Thus, the findings of this study underline earlier indications that proficiency testing may be simplified.

L2 proficiency predicts inhibitory ability in L1-dominant speakers

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 984-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nga-Yan Hui ◽  
Mingyu Yuan ◽  
Manson Cheuk-Man Fong ◽  
William Shi-yuan Wang
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Multiple Regression ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Stroop Task ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
First Language ◽  
Proficiency Tests ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Language Background ◽  
Bilingual Advantage

Aims and Objectives: Bilinguals reportedly perform better in tasks that require the suppression of interference because of the constant practice in linguistic inhibition. However, previous literature was largely based on comparisons of pure monolinguals and balanced bilinguals. Those in between the two extremes were rarely examined. This project aimed at studying whether the population who primarily speak in a first language with a different level of second language proficiency also enjoy bilingual advantage. Methodology: Twelve monolingual and 38 bilingual Hong Kong older adults were recruited to perform the Stroop task and the second language (English) proficiency tests. The subjects were all frequent first language (Cantonese) speakers with various levels of second language proficiency. Data and Analysis: Pearson correlation and multiple regression analyses were used to identify the relationship between inhibition ability (Stroop score) and demographic and language background variables (including proficiency in and frequency of exposure to their second language). Findings: Both correlation and multiple regression analysis showed that the subjects with higher proficiency in a second language performed significantly better in the Stroop task. The results suggested that higher second language proficiency leads to higher difficulty in suppressing it, thus the training of inhibition is more effective. Originality: This study expanded the literature on bilingual advantage from a dichotomous comparison between monolingual and bilingual to the more continuous spectrum of bilinguals with different levels of second language proficiency. This study aimed at showing a fuller picture of bilingualism in the world. Significance/Implications: This study proposed that with high proficiency in a second language, frequent first language speakers could also enjoy cognitive advantages brought by bilingualism. Our study provides further evidence for the bilingual advantage hypothesis.

PROCESSING FOCUS STRUCTURE IN L1 AND L2 FRENCH

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert V. Reichle ◽  
David Birdsong
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Focus Condition ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Focus Marking ◽  
L1 And L2

This study examined the event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by focus processing among first language (L1) speakers and second language (L2) learners of French. Participants read wh-questions containing explicit focus marking, followed by responses instantiating contrastive and informational focus. We hypothesized that L2 proficiency would modulate nativelikeness in L2 processing. For the L1 and L2 groups, widespread word-long positive shifts reflected the processing of nouns receiving informational and contrastive focus. Nouns receiving contrastive focus showed an increased anterior negativity compared to informational focus for both groups. Second language proficiency modulated the amplitude of this negativity effect, and subgroup analyses of low- and high-proficiency L2 learners showed no significant effect of focus condition among low-proficiency learners. This modulatory relationship between L2 proficiency and nativelikeness of processing is consistent with the dynamic sequence of L2 ERPs observed for morphosyntactic processing and extends those findings to the syntax-pragmatics interface phenomenon of focus processing.

SOURCES OF VARIATION IN SECOND AND NATIVE LANGUAGE SPEAKING PROFICIENCY AMONG COLLEGE-AGED SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Mona Roxana Botezatu ◽  
Taomei Guo ◽  
Judith F. Kroll ◽  
Sarah Peterson ◽  
Dalia L. Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Native Language ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Speaking Proficiency ◽  
Sources Of Variation ◽  
Internal Sources ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract We evaluated external and internal sources of variation in second language (L2) and native language (L1) proficiency among college students. One hundred and twelve native-English L2 learners completed measures of L1 and L2 speaking proficiency, working memory, and cognitive control and provided self-ratings of language exposure and use. When considering learner-external variation, we found that more frequent L2 exposure predicted higher L2 and L1 proficiency, while earlier L2 exposure predicted higher L2 proficiency, but poorer L1 maintenance. L1–L2 distance limited crosslinguistic transfer of print-to-sound mappings. When considering learner-internal variation, we found that L1 and L2 proficiency were highly correlated and that better working memory, but not cognitive control, accounted for additional variance in L2 and L1 proficiency. More frequent L2 exposure was associated with better cognitive control.

scholarly journals From “No, she does” to “Yes, she does”: Negation processing in negative yes–no questions by Mandarin speakers of English

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Haoruo Zhang ◽  
Norbert Vanek
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Production Experiment ◽  
Mandarin Speakers ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Negative Questions

Abstract In response to negative yes–no questions (e.g., Doesn’t she like cats?), typical English answers (Yes, she does/No, she doesn’t) peculiarly vary from those in Mandarin (No, she does/Yes, she doesn’t). What are the processing consequences of these markedly different conventionalized linguistic responses to achieve the same communicative goals? And if English and Mandarin speakers process negative questions differently, to what extent does processing change in Mandarin–English sequential bilinguals? Two experiments addressed these questions. Mandarin–English bilinguals, English and Mandarin monolinguals (N = 40/group) were tested in a production experiment (Expt. 1). The task was to formulate answers to positive/negative yes–no questions. The same participants were also tested in a comprehension experiment (Expt. 2), in which they had to answer positive/negative questions with time-measured yes/no button presses. In both Expt. 1 and Expt. 2, English and Mandarin speakers showed language-specific yes/no answers to negative questions. Also, in both experiments, English speakers showed a reaction-time advantage over Mandarin speakers in negation conditions. Bilingual’s performance was in-between that of the L1 and L2 baseline. These findings are suggestive of language-specific processing of negative questions. They also signal that the ways in which bilinguals process negative questions are susceptible to restructuring driven by the second language.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document