We investigated the effects of instruction method and cross‐language similarity during second language (L2) grammar learning. English speakers learned a subset of Swedish using contrast and color highlighting (Salience Group), contrast and highlighting with grammatical explanations (Rule & Salience Group), or neither (Control Group with exposure only). Comprehension of grammatical features corresponding to three levels of L1–L2 similarity (similar, dissimilar, unique to L2) were contrasted in three posttests. Grammaticality judgments on L2 sentences: (a) improved across tests for all three training groups, (b) were least accurate for dissimilar features in all groups, and (c) were most accurate for cross‐linguistically similar features in both the Control and Salience groups. Only a trend was found for high language‐learning aptitude (as measured by the Words‐In‐Sentences instrument of the Modern Languages Aptitude Test) possibly facilitating the learning of grammatical features that are distinct from L1. The findings suggest that ideal instructional conditions for L2 morphosyntax may vary with cross‐language similarity.

This review examines whether similarity between the first language (L1) and second language (L2) influences the (morpho)syntactic processing of the L2, using both neural location and temporal processing information. Results from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and event-related potential (ERP) studies show that nonnative speakers can exhibit nativelike online L2 (morpho)syntactic processing behavior and neural patterns. These findings are contrary to predictions of the shallow structure hypothesis for syntactic processing (Clahsen & Felser, 2006a, 2006b). The data are in line with predictions of the (morpho)syntactic domain of the unified competition model of L2 acquisition (MacWhinney, 2005): Differences in L2 processing as compared to the L1 (or to native speakers of the L2) were generally associated with constructions that were crosslinguistically dissimilar or unique to the L2. The processing of crosslinguistically similar constructions generally produced no differences in brain activity between the L1 and L2. Overall, the available data suggest that cross-language similarity is an important factor that influences L2 (morpho)syntactic processing.

No abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between implicit and explicit second-language (L2) processing in beginning L2 learners, and how cross-language similarity influences this relationship. The brain activity of native English speakers was recorded as they performed grammaticality judgments on Spanish sentences. The three types of agreement violations used were similar in the two languages ("Similar" type), different in the two ("Different" type), and unique to L2 ("Unique" type). After a baseline assessment, we improved participants' accuracy and then retested them on new and repeated items. Results showed that the explicit increase in accuracy was accompanied by a significant increase in brain sensitivity, as measured by the P600 ERP component. This effect was most pronounced for the Similar and Different types.Additionally, grammatical sensitivity was greater for repeated items in both measures of processing, and this was also modulated by cross-language similarity as well as the specific type of repetition. The obtained results are in line with an interface position on the relationship between implicit and explicit L2 processing and suggest a strong modulatory role of crosslanguage similarity in both types of processing.Keywords: Implicit/Explicit Processing; Second Language Processing; Cross-Language Similarity; ERPs; P600.iii Most adults who attempt to learn a foreign language can relate to the fact that it usually constitutes a highly effortful and oftentimes quite lengthy process. The ease with which one's first language (L1) was acquired is conspicuously absent and the developing second language (L2) has to now overcome the often detrimental influence of a highly ingrained L1 (e.g., MacWhinney, 2005). This, however, does not imply that a high level of proficiency and automaticity in the processing of an adult-learned L2 cannot be achieved. Some research has been conducted in the field of L2 learning examining the different ways in which beginning adult learners process their L2. Specifically, various studies have investigated the nature of this processing in terms of its implicit and explicit components, drawing a distinction between them.According to some authors (e.g., R. Hulstijn, 2005), explicit and implicit knowledge differ, among other things, in the extent to which one is consciously aware or intuitively aware of regular patterns in the information one possesses, and the extent to which one can or cannot verbalize such patterns, respectively. Furthermore, access to implicit knowledge is thought to occur automatically whereas access to explicit knowledge is thought to involve controlled processes (N. R. Ellis, 2005). The term explicit knowledge is often used interchangeably with the term declarative knowledge. Thus, two important distinctions between implicit and explicit knowledge of an L2 are the level of awareness as well as the amount of effort involved in accessing relevant linguistic rules or patterns.The goal of the present study was to investigate the relationship between implic...