Across Languages, Space, and Time

Abstract

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.

Language background affects online word order processing in a second language but not offline

“…Although there were no differences in the learner groups behaviourally (offline), the differences in the ERP effects (online) indicated that L2 learners whose L1 has a similar word order seem to use similar neurological substrates as native speakers to process the L2. Importantly, these findings extend the results from other ERP studies exploring effects of the L1 on L2 processing of morphosyntax (Dowens et al, 2011;Dowens et al, 2010;Sabourin & Stowe, 2008) to syntactic structures showing that similarities in the L1 and L2 are more likely to yield similar ERP responses than structures that are not (for overviews see Caffarra, Molinaro, Davidson & Carreiras, 2015;Morgan-Short, 2014;Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011;van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010). The findings therefore also suggest that the developmental trajectory of online word order processing in a second language may depend on whether the first and second language show similarities (more L1-L2 similarities should lead to faster nativelike processing), even if the development of offline comprehension shows no such influence.…”

L1 Explicit Instruction Can Improve L2 Online and Offline Performance

“…These findings are broadly compatible with existing evidence about L1 effects during L2 processing (e.g. Sanoudaki & Thierry, 2014;Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011). However, further research is required to examine whether a) this coactivation is unique to mixed language tests (our CMTs and SPR both included an L1 context and L2 stimulus) and b) current findings would hold for tests only presented in the L2.…”

“…There is also growing evidence of L1 coactivation/influence during online L2 sentence processing (e.g. Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011). Tokowicz and WarrenÕs (2010) self-paced reading study with beginner learners reported slower reading times at morphosyntactic violations for L2 Spanish features that were cross-linguistically similar (verb aspect licensing), but not for those that were entirely unique to the L2 (determinerÐnoun gender agreement).…”

“…Of course, some theories foreground a role for the L1 in critical aspects of input processing, such as attention allocation being entrenched by the L1 (Ellis, 2006); processing routines being influenced by the L1 when a feature is not unique to the L2 (MacWhinney, 2005); or L2 processing routines being difficult to learn in cases where adopting related L1 routines would require fewer processing resources (O’Grady, 2005, 2015). There is also growing evidence of L1 coactivation/influence during online L2 sentence processing (e.g., Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011). Tokowicz and Warren’s (2010) self-paced reading (SPR) study with beginner learners reported slower reading times at morphosyntactic violations for L2 Spanish features that were cross-linguistically similar (verb aspect licensing), but not for those that were entirely unique to the L2 (determiner–noun gender agreement).…”

The impact of Relative Language Distance on Bilingual Language Control – a functional imaging study

“…Prior neuroimaging studies indicate that RLD certainly has some consequences for bilinguals, especially with regards to how each language is neurally represented and processed vis-a-vis the other. Linguistic features specific to one language can require additional or specialized neural resources (such as processing tonal vs. non-tonal phonemes), which can give rise to functionally different neural processing profiles for each language in the bilingual brain (e.g., Bick et al, 2011;Mei et al, 2015;Perfetti et al, 2007;Green et al, 2007;Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011). However, despite language combinations/RLD being an obvious point of variation among bilinguals and a distinguishing dimension of the bilingual experience, its possible contribution to the bilingual experience has not received a lot of attention (Bialystok, 2017).…”