Word Reading in L1 and L2 Learners of Chinese: Similarities and Differences in the Functioning of Component Processes

2017 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongbo Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Word Reading ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Component Processes ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
L1 And L2

Neural deficits in auditory phonological processing in Chinese children with English reading impairment

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
XIANGZHI MENG ◽  
HANLIN YOU ◽  
MEIXIA SONG ◽  
AMY S. DESROCHES ◽  
ZHENGKE WANG ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Phonological Processing ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Superior Temporal Gyrus ◽  
Neural Mechanism ◽  
Reading Impairment ◽  
English Reading ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Esl Learners

Auditory phonological processing skills are critical for successful reading development in English not only in native (L1) speakers but also in second language (L2) learners. However, the neural deficits of auditory phonological processing remain unknown in English-as-the-second-language (ESL) learners with reading difficulties. Here we investigated neural responses during spoken word rhyme judgments in typical and impaired ESL readers in China. The impaired readers showed comparable activation in the left superior temporal gyrus (LSTG), but reduced activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and left fusiform and reduced connectivity between the LSTG and left fusiform when compared to typical readers. These findings suggest that impaired ESL readers have relative intact representations but impaired manipulation of phonology and reduced or absent automatic access to orthographic representations. This is consistent with previous findings in native English speakers and suggests a common neural mechanism underlying English impairment across the L1 and L2 learners.

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.

PROCESSING OF THE REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE VERSUS MAIN VERB AMBIGUITY IN L2 LEARNERS AT DIFFERENT PROFICIENCY LEVELS

2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Rah ◽  
Dany Adone
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Online Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Versus Main ◽  
Main Verb ◽  
L1 And L2

This article presents new evidence from offline and online processing of garden-path sentences that are ambiguous between reduced relative clause resolution and main verb resolution. The participants of this study are intermediate and advanced German learners of English who have learned the language in a nonimmersed context. The results show that for second language (L2) learners, there is a dissociation between parsing mechanisms and grammatical knowledge: The learners successfully process the structures in question offline, but the online self-paced reading task shows different patterns for the L2 learners and the native-speaker control group. The results are discussed with regard to shallow processing in L2 learners (Clahsen & Felser, 2006). Because the structures in question differ in English and German, first language (L1) influence is also discussed as an explanation for the findings. The comparison of the three participant groups’ results points to a gradual rather than a fundamental difference between L1 and L2 processing.

scholarly journals Investigation of Native Speaker and Second Language Learner Intuition of Collocation Frequency

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Siyanova ◽  
S Spina
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
Very Low Frequency ◽  
Second Language Learner ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

© 2015 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan. Research into frequency intuition has focused primarily on native (L1) and, to a lesser degree, nonnative (L2) speaker intuitions about single word frequency. What remains a largely unexplored area is L1 and L2 intuitions about collocation (i.e., phrasal) frequency. To bridge this gap, the present study aimed to answer the following question: How do L2 learners and native speakers compare against each other and corpora in their subjective judgments of collocation frequency? Native speakers and learners of Italian were asked to judge 80 noun-adjective pairings as one of the following: high frequency, medium frequency, low frequency, very low frequency. Both L1 and L2 intuitions of high frequency collocations correlated strongly with corpus frequency. Neither of the two groups of participants exhibited accurate intuitions of medium and low frequency collocations. With regard to very low frequency pairings, L1 but not L2 intuitions were found to correlate with corpora for the majority of the items. Further, mixed-effects modeling revealed that L2 learners were comparable to native speakers in their judgments of the four frequency bands, although some differences did emerge. Taken together, the study provides new insights into the nature of L1 and L2 intuitions about phrasal frequency.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document