scholarly journals Reply to Yang and Yang: Culturally primed first-language intrusion into second-language processing is associative spillover, not strategy

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (47) ◽  
pp. E4404-E4404 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. W. Morris ◽  
S. Zhang
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. 694-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAN JUFFS

Cunnings (2016) provides welcome insights into differences between native speaker (NS) sentence processing, adult non-native speaker processing (NNS), and working memory capacity (WMC) limitations. This commentary briefly raises three issues: construct operationalization; the role of first language (L1); and context.


2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin ◽  
Laurie A. Stowe

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.


2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela Håkansson ◽  
Manfred Pienemann ◽  
Susan Sayehli

In this article, the issue of cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition is examined from a processing perspective. Applying Processability Theory as the theoretical framework we claim that second language (L2) learners can only produce forms they are able to process. We thus argue that the first language (L1) influence on the L2 is developmentally moderated. Data were collected from German L2 learners with Swedish as their L1. Twenty informants participated in the study, 10 in their first year of German (13 years of age) and 10 in their second year of German (14 years of age). Both languages involved are typologically very close but not mutually intelligible. The results show that Swedish learners of German do not transfer the verb-second structure from their L1 to the L2 even though this structure is identical in both languages.Instead they start out with canonical word order and subsequently produce an intermediate structure (adv NPsubjV X), which is ungrammatical in the L1 and the L2. These observations support the idea of a developmentally moderated transfer. The results clearly contradict the predictions from the ‘full transfer/full access’ hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996).


2017 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 128-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Casey Lew-Williams

ABSTRACTEfficiency in real-time language processing generally poses a greater challenge to adults learning a second language (L2) than to children learning a first language (L1). A notoriously difficult aspect of language for L2 learners to master is grammatical gender, and previous research has shown that L2 learners do not exploit cues to grammatical gender in ways that resemble L1 speakers. But it is not clear whether this problem is restricted to grammatical gender or whether it reflects a broader difficulty with processing local relations between words. Moreover, we do not know if immersive L2 environments, relative to typical L2 classrooms, confer advantages in learning regularities between words. In three eye-tracking experiments, 6- and 10-year-old children who were enrolled in Spanish immersion elementary schools listened to sentences with articles that conveyed information about the grammatical gender (Experiment 1), biological gender (Experiment 2), and number of referents in the visual field (Experiment 3). L1 children used articles to guide their attention to target referents in all three experiments. L2 children did not take advantage of articles as cues to grammatical gender, but succeeded in doing so for biological gender and number. Interpretations of these findings focus on how learning experiences interact with the nature of specific referential contexts to shape learners’ efficiency in language processing.


1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Juffs

This article explores some effects of first language verb-argument structure on second language processing of English as a second language. Speakers of Chinese, Japanese or Korean, three Romance languages and native English speakers provided word-by-word reading times and grammaticality judgement data in a self-paced reading task. Results suggest that reliable differences in parsing are not restricted to cases where verb-argument structure differs crosslinguistically.


2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-84
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document