scholarly journals Electrophysiological correlates of second language processing

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutta L. Mueller

The aim of this article is to provide a selective review of event-related potential (ERP) research on second language processing. As ERPs have been used in the investigation of a variety of linguistic domains, the reported studies cover different paradigms assessing processing mechanisms in the second language at various levels, ranging from phoneme discrimination to complex sentence processing. Differences between ERP patterns of first language (L1) and second language (L2) speakers can help to specify and to test predictions derived from models of L2 processing or hypotheses concerning critical periods for some aspects of second language acquisition. The studies currently available suggest that ERPs are indeed sensitive to qualitative and quantitative differences in L2 speakers with regard to on-line processing.

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
LEAH ROBERTS ◽  
CLAUDIA FELSER

ABSTRACTIn this study, the influence of plausibility information on the real-time processing of locally ambiguous (“garden path”) sentences in a nonnative language is investigated. Using self-paced reading, we examined how advanced Greek-speaking learners of English and native speaker controls read sentences containing temporary subject–object ambiguities, with the ambiguous noun phrase being either semantically plausible or implausible as the direct object of the immediately preceding verb. Besides providing evidence for incremental interpretation in second language processing, our results indicate that the learners were more strongly influenced by plausibility information than the native speaker controls in their on-line processing of the experimental items. For the second language learners an initially plausible direct object interpretation lead to increased reanalysis difficulty in “weak” garden-path sentences where the required reanalysis did not interrupt the current thematic processing domain. No such evidence of on-line recovery was observed, in contrast, for “strong” garden-path sentences that required more substantial revisions of the representation built thus far, suggesting that comprehension breakdown was more likely here.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Hed ◽  
Andrea Schremm ◽  
Merle Horne ◽  
Mikael Roll

Abstract Native speakers of Swedish use tones on stems to predict which suffix is to follow. This is seen behaviorally in reduced response times for matching tone-suffix pairs. Neurophysiologically, online prediction is reflected in the event-related potential (ERP) component pre-activation negativity (PrAN) occurring for tones with a higher predictive value. Invalid suffixes relative to the tone produce a left anterior negativity (LAN), or a broadly distributed negativity, and a P600. When native speakers make decisions about the inflection of words, response times are also longer for invalid tone-suffix combinations. In this study, low to intermediate level second language learners with non-tonal native languages trained tone-suffix associations for two weeks. Before and after training, they participated in a perception test where they listened to nouns with valid and invalid tone-suffix combinations and performed a singular/plural judgment task. During the test, electroencephalography (EEG) and response times were measured. After training, the PrAN effect increased, and a LAN emerged for invalid stimuli, indicating that the participants had acquired the tone-suffix association, using the tones as predictors more extensively post-training. However, neither a P600 nor longer response times for invalidity were found, suggesting potential differences in native and second language processing of the tone-suffix association.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 702-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTON MALKO ◽  
LARA EHRENHOFER ◽  
COLIN PHILLIPS

Analyzing L2 sentence processing in terms of cue-based memory retrieval is promising. But this useful general framework has yet to become a specific theory of L1-L2 differences.


Author(s):  
John Archibald

The distinction between representations and processes is central to most models of the cognitive science of language. Linguistic theory informs the types of representations assumed, and these representations are what are taken to be the targets of second language acquisition. Epistemologically, this is often taken to be knowledge, or knowledge-that. Techniques such as Grammaticality Judgment tasks are paradigmatic as we seek to gain insight into what a learner’s grammar looks like. Learners behave as if certain phonological, morphological, or syntactic strings (which may or may not be target-like) were well-formed. It is the task of the researcher to understand the nature of the knowledge that governs those well-formedness beliefs. Traditional accounts of processing, on the other hand, look to the real-time use of language, either in production or perception, and invoke discussions of skill or knowledge-how. A range of experimental psycholinguistic techniques have been used to assess these skills: self-paced reading, eye-tracking, ERPs, priming, lexical decision, AXB discrimination, and the like. Such online measures can show us how we “do” language when it comes to activities such as production or comprehension. There has long been a connection between linguistic theory and theories of processing as evidenced by the work of Berwick (The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance). The task of the parser is to assign abstract structure to a phonological, morphological, or syntactic string; structure that does not come directly labeled in the acoustic input. Such processing studies as the Garden Path phenomenon have revealed that grammaticality and processability are distinct constructs. In some models, however, the distinction between grammar and processing is less distinct. Phillips says that “parsing is grammar,” while O’Grady builds an emergentist theory with no grammar, only processing. Bayesian models of acquisition, and indeed of knowledge, assume that the grammars we set up are governed by a principle of entropy, which governs other aspects of human behavior; knowledge and skill are combined. Exemplar models view the processing of the input as a storing of all phonetic detail that is in the environment, not storing abstract categories; the categories emerge via a process of comparing exemplars. Linguistic theory helps us to understand the processing of input to acquire new L2 representations, and the access of those representations in real time.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwen Patricia Dyson

Abstract Research on second language acquisition has located individual variation, without clarifying whether language processing prompts learners to differ systematically in the production of syntax and morphology. To address this issue, the study examined the hypothesis on variation in Processability Theory. This theory predicts that, within second language development, individual learners vary systematically in how they respond to developmental conflicts. Specifically, learners have distinct types, which are evident in their use of options and 'trailers' (structures which emerge late). Longitudinal spoken data were collected over one academic year from six adolescent ESL learners. The results revealed different learner types in terms of syntactic options and trailers. However, the learners had less clear types for the morphological options, used unpredicted options, and lacked consistency in their use of syntactic and morphological trailers. The paper suggests that learners vary in processing due to diverse orientations towards the acquisition of either syntax or morphology.


2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 636-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
LUCIA POZZAN ◽  
JOHN C. TRUESWELL

We asked whether children's well-known difficulties revising initial sentence processing commitments characterize the immature or the learning parser. Adult L2 speakers of English acted out temporarily ambiguous and unambiguous instructions. While online processing patterns indicate that L2 adults experienced garden-paths and were sensitive to referential information to a similar degree as native adults, their act-out patterns indicate increased difficulties revising initial interpretations, at rates similar to those observed for 5-year-old native children (e.g., Trueswell, Sekerina, Hill & Logrip, 1999). We propose that L2 learners’ difficulties with revision stem from increased recruitment of cognitive control networks during processing of a not fully proficient language, resulting in the reduced availability of cognitive control for parsing revisions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-255
Author(s):  
Aline Godfroid ◽  
Paula Winke ◽  
Kathy Conklin

In this paper, we review how eye tracking, which offers millisecond-precise information about how language learners orient their visual attention, can be used to investigate a variety of processes involved in the multifaceted endeavor of second language acquisition (SLA). In particular, we review the last 15 years of research in SLA, in which applied linguists have exploited the information gleaned from eye-tracking metrics to advance the field. As we explain, eye-tracking researchers within SLA have diversified which aspects of SLA they investigate and are entering new territory by pairing eye-tracking metrics with other data-collection methods for data-triangulation purposes. Eye tracking in SLA is also an inherently interdisciplinary endeavor, for which research partnerships with computer scientists hold special promise in the areas of automated language assessment and the evaluation of cognitive functioning and processing. We describe how the papers in this special issue on eye tracking in Second Language Research push the boundaries by: (a) ensuring greater standardization of how eye tracking is used in SLA (Godfroid and Hui, 2020); (b) embedding eye-tracking metrics within a mixed-methods design for more valid and complete data interpretation (Andringa, 2020; Michel et al., 2020); (c) using eye trackers to investigate the nuanced differences in cognitive processes involved across multimodal input and feedback types in SLA (Conklin et al., 2020; McDonough et al., 2020).


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.


2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Marinis

This article presents the benefits of using online methodologies in second language acquisition (SLA) research. It provides a selection of online experiments that have been widely used in first and second language processing studies that are suitable for SLA research and most importantly discusses the hardware and software packages and other equipment required for the setting-up of a psycholinguistics laboratory, the advantages and disadvantages of the software packages available and what financial costs are involved. The aim of the article is to inspire researchers in second language acquisition to embark on research using online methodologies.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document