Language Learning and Control in Monolinguals and Bilinguals

Bartolotti, James; Marian, Viorica

doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01243.x

Cited by 117 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beginning second language learners process two languages differently than fluent bilinguals because of learners’ asymmetry in proficiency (Kroll & Bogulski, 2013; Kroll & Stewart, 1994). This asymmetry also affects how language learners control interference between languages (Bartolotti & Marian, 2012; Costa & Santesteban, 2004). By studying patterns of second language acquisition, it is possible to assess the trajectory of experience-related changes in neurological processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural signatures of second language learning and control

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experience with multiple languages has unique effects on cortical structure and information processing. Differences in gray matter density and patterns of cortical activation are observed in lifelong bilinguals compared to monolinguals as a result of their experience managing interference across languages. Monolinguals who acquire a second language later in life begin to encounter the same type of linguistic interference as bilinguals, but with a different pre-existing language architecture. The current study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to explore the beginning stages of second language acquisition and cross-linguistic interference in monolingual adults. We found that after English monolinguals learned novel Spanish vocabulary, English and Spanish auditory words led to distinct patterns of cortical activation, with greater recruitment of posterior parietal regions in response to English words and of left hippocampus in response to Spanish words. In addition, cross-linguistic interference from English influenced processing of newly-learned Spanish words, decreasing hippocampus activity. Results suggest that monolinguals may rely on different memory systems to process a newly-learned second language, and that the second language system is sensitive to native language interference.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural signatures of second language learning and control

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…suggests that the bilingual advantage in novel-word learning may be facilitated by enhanced executive control (see Bartolotti & Marian 2012;Bartolotti, Marian, Schroeder, & Shook, 2011;Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009a, b), possibly reflecting the need to suppress erroneous responses (c.f., Hammer, Mohammadi, Schmicker, Saliger, & Münte, 2011;Warmington & Hitch, 2014;Warmington, Hitch, & Gathercole, 2013). More generally, executive control abilities have been shown to be a concurrent and longitudinal predictor of vocabulary development in monolinguals, and children and adolescents with specific language impairment show significant deficits in performing executive tasks (see Gathercole, 2006;Rose, Feldman, & Jankowski, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the learning of new words using an errorless learning procedure: Evidence from typical adults

Warmington

Hitch

2013

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Future studies may seek to identify and test naturally occurring contextual variables or to train novel contextual variables that will act as Cfuncs and Crels in experimental environments. In line with this operant interpretation, recent work (Bartolotti & Marian, 2012) suggests that bilinguals' experience of multiple languages reduces crosslanguage interference (expressed in computer mouse and eye movements) when learning new languages, relative to monolinguals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Using action dynamics to assess competing stimulus control during stimulus equivalence testing

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have identified potential sources of competing stimulus control in tests for stimulus equivalence. The present experiment employed the Nintendo Wii remote (Wiimote®) to investigate whether such competition would affect suboperant action dynamics (e.g., topographies of equivalence responses). Following one-to-many training on conditional discriminations sufficient to establish three 3-member equivalence classes, participants were presented with a test for equivalence responding that included five different trial types. These included "traditional" equivalence trials, on which the incorrect stimulus had previously been presented as a correct comparison stimulus during training, trials on which a novel unrelated word was provided as the incorrect comparison, and trials on which the incorrect stimulus varied in orthographical and phonological similarity to the sample stimulus. The presence of phonological and orthographic distractor stimuli significantly reduced the probability of equivalence-consistent responding, relative to neutral distractors, but this effect was almost exclusively seen in participants who failed to demonstrate equivalence on traditional equivalence trials. Analyses of correct response trajectories suggested that the prior history of reinforcement for choosing the incorrect stimulus on the traditional equivalence trial gave rise to greater competition than did phonological or orthographic similarity between the sample and incorrect comparisons.Keywords Stimulus control . Phonology . Orthography . Stimulus equivalence . Action dynamics . Humans . Stimulus control topography coherence . Naming theory . Relational frame theory Stimulus equivalence constitutes a behavioral phenomenon that may, in part, account for the development of symbolic relations among stimuli (e.g., Barnes, 1994;Dougher, 1998;Sidman, 1994Sidman, , 2000. Stimulus equivalence is typically examined in a matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure using conditional discriminations. For example, in the presence of an arbitrary stimulus A1 (sample), choosing another stimulus B1 (comparison) is reinforced. Then, in the presence of B1 (sample), choosing C1 (comparison) is reinforced. Stimulus equivalence requires that, in the presence of A1, participants choose C1 (transitivity) and can reverse both of the trained relations (choose A1 in the presence of B1 and C1 in the presence of B1; symmetry). Choosing A1 as a comparison when C1 is a sample (combined symmetry and transitivity) is often employed as the test of the emergence of the equivalence class (e.g., Sidman & Tailby, 1982).There are a number of competing explanations of stimulus equivalence and the role it plays in accounting for complex behavior (e.g

show abstract

Language Learning and Control in Monolinguals and Bilinguals

Cited by 117 publications

References 55 publications

Neural signatures of second language learning and control

Neural signatures of second language learning and control

Enhancing the learning of new words using an errorless learning procedure: Evidence from typical adults

Using action dynamics to assess competing stimulus control during stimulus equivalence testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About