Susceptibility to interference affects the second and the first language

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 681-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAOLA E. DUSSIAS ◽  
ANNE L. BEATTY-MARTÍNEZ ◽  
LAUREN PERROTTI
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
First Language ◽  
The Core ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
How People Learn

Memory is an integral part of language processing. Given this, a better understanding of how people learn, represent and process language requires considerations of the principles of memory that support language comprehension. Cunnings’ paper (Cunnings, 2016) does just this. The core of his proposal is that second language (L2) processing that is non-target like can be explained in terms of memory operations rather than by invoking a shallow processor (cf. Clahsen & Felser, 2006).

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.

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”.

Grounded cognition: Comparing Language × Space interactions in first language and second language

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 437-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIELA KATHARINA AHLBERG ◽  
HEIKE BISCHOFF ◽  
BARBARA KAUP ◽  
DOREEN BRYANT ◽  
JESSICA VANESSA STROZYK
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
First Language ◽  
Hand Movement ◽  
Grounded Cognition ◽  
Spatial Prepositions ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Stroop Paradigm ◽  
Spatial Terms ◽  
Font Color

ABSTRACTThe experiential traces account claims that language comprehension in one's first language (L1) is based on the reactivation of experiential traces that stem from experiencing the corresponding objects, states, or events. However, it remains unclear to what extent this is transferable to second language (L2) comprehension. In the present study, we compared German L1 speakers with German L2 speakers whose L1 uses similar or different spatial terms as German. In an adaptation of the Stroop paradigm, participants were instructed to respond to the font color of German spatial prepositions (e.g.,auf“on,”über“above,” andunter“under/below”) by either an upward or a downward hand movement, resulting in compatible or incompatible responses. We found significant compatibility effects for all speakers, but also clear differences between speakers of different L1s. The results thereby support the assumption that experiential traces built during L1 usage play an important role in L2 processing.

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 What is special about L3 processing?

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
KEES DE BOT ◽  
CAROL JAENSCH
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Third Language ◽  
The Core ◽  
Dynamic Perspective ◽  
Core Issue ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Over Time

While research on third language (L3) and multilingualism has recently shown remarkable growth, the fundamental question of what makes trilingualism special compared to bilingualism, and indeed monolingualism, continues to be evaded. In this contribution we consider whether there is such a thing as a true monolingual, and if there is a difference between dialects, styles, registers and languages. While linguistic and psycholinguistic studies suggest differences in the processing of a third, compared to the first or second language, neurolinguistic research has shown that generally the same areas of the brain are activated during language use in proficient multilinguals. It is concluded that while from traditional linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives there are grounds to differentiate monolingual, bilingual and multilingual processing, a more dynamic perspective on language processing in which development over time is the core issue, leads to a questioning of the notion of languages as separate entities in the brain.

The processing of case in near-native Spanish

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Jegerski
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Case Marker ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
Ditransitive Constructions

This article reports a study that sought to determine whether non-native sentence comprehension can show sensitivity to two different types of Spanish case marking. Sensitivity to case violations was generally more robust with indirect objects in ditransitive constructions than with differential object marking of animate direct objects, even among native speakers of Spanish, which probably reflects linguistic differences in the two types of case. In addition, the overall outcome of two experiments shows that second language (L2) processing can integrate case information, but that, unlike with native processing, attention to a case marker may depend on the presence of a preverbal clitic as an additional cue to the types of postverbal arguments that might occur in a stimulus. Specifically, L2 readers showed no sensitivity to differential object marking with a in the absence of clitics in the first experiment, with stimuli such as Verónica visita al/el presidente todos los meses ‘Veronica visits the[ACC/NOM]president every month’, but the L2 readers in the second experiment showed native-like sensitivity to the same marker when the object it marked was doubled by the clitic lo, as in Verónica lo visita al/el presidente todos los meses. With indirect objects, on the other hand, sensitivity to case markers was native-like in both experiments, although indirect objects were also always doubled by the preverbal clitic le. The apparent first language / second language contrast suggests differences in processing strategy, whereby non-native processing of morphosyntax may rely more on the predictability of forms than does native processing.

Meta-analysis of the neural representation of first language and second language

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 799-819 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAJANI SEBASTIAN ◽  
ANGELA R. LAIRD ◽  
SWATHI KIRAN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Functional Neuroimaging ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
First Language ◽  
Likelihood Estimation ◽  
Neural Representation ◽  
Second Language Processing ◽  
Meta Analyses

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.

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.

Dominance, proficiency, and second language grammatical processing

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-49
Author(s):  
David Birdsong
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L2 Learners

Clahsen and Felser (CF) deserve praise for their superlative synthesis of literature relating to grammatical processing, as well as for their original contributions to this area of research. CF “explore the idea that there might be fundamental differences between child L1 and adult L2 processing.” The researchers present evidence that adult second language (L2) processing is often less automatic and less efficient than first language (L1) processing. Qualitative differences are suggested as well. Adult L2 processing may be restricted to shallow computations, whereas L1 processing typically involves detailed representations. These conclusions are reached in large part by comparing highly proficient L2 learners with natives on various neurological and behavioral dimensions of processing. I propose that additional comparisons might be carried out that involve an understudied population: learners whose L2 is their dominant language.

The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Text Comprehension ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
First Language ◽  
Grammatical Encoding ◽  
Current State

This handbook reviews the current state of the art in the field of psycholinguistics. Part I deals with language comprehension at the sublexical, lexical, and sentence and discourse levels. It explores concepts of speech representation and the search for universal speech segmentation mechanisms against a background of linguistic diversity and compares first language with second language segmentation. It also discusses visual word recognition, lexico-semantics, the different forms of lexical ambiguity, sentence comprehension, text comprehension, and language in deaf populations. Part II focuses on language production, with chapters covering topics such as word production and related processes based on evidence from aphasia, the major debates surrounding grammatical encoding. Part III considers various aspects of interaction and communication, including the role of gesture in language processing, approaches to the study of perspective-taking, and the interrelationships between language comprehension, emotion, and sociality. Part IV is concerned with language development and evolution, focusing on topics ranging from the development of prosodic phonology, the neurobiology of artificial grammar learning, and developmental dyslexia. The book concludes with Part V, which looks at methodological advances in psycholinguistic research, such as the use of intracranial electrophysiology in the area of language processing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document