Novice Learners, Longitudinal Designs, and Event‐Related Potentials: A Means for Exploring the Neurocognition of Second Language Processing

Osterhout, Lee; McLaughlin, Judith; Pitkänen, Ilona; Frenck-Mestre, Cheryl; Molinaro, Nicola

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00361.x

Cited by 225 publications

(260 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

221

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study, along with several other recent findings in the EEG literature (Osterhout et al 2006;Mueller et al 2005), offers evidence that the representational capacity of adult language users can change quickly during adult language learning. However, resource-based psycholinguistic models of processing complexity like those reviewed in the introduction have not yet addressed how the grammatical or representational resources used to parse complex sentences can change with language experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Plasticity of grammatical recursion in German learners of Dutch

Davidson

Indefrey

2009

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the multilingual comprehension and learning of cross-serial and embedded constructions in Germanspeaking learners of Dutch using magnetoencephalography (MEG). In several experimental sessions, learners performed a sentence-scene matching task with Dutch sentences including two different verb orders (Dutch or German verb order). The results indicated a larger evoked response for the German order relative to the Dutch order over frontal sensors after three months, but not initially. The response implies that sensitivity to violations of verb order remains plastic into adulthood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Recent work has shown that electrophysiology is sensitive to learning-related changes in adult language learners (Mueller et al 2005;Osterhout et al 2006). The hypothesis under investigation is that the ability to adapt to different forms of recursion remains plastic in adulthood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plasticity of grammatical recursion in German learners of Dutch

Davidson

Indefrey

2009

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the pattern of results across studies differed for the Different and Unique types: whereas neither of the two studies found a P600 in response to determiner number agreement violations, this was observed in the present study, albeit to a lesser degree than that found in response to demonstrative determiner number agreement (Similar type). Although it is possible that the discrepancy with the Osterhout et al (2006) study is due to the length of L2 instruction in the two groups of participants, this is unlikely because participants in that study had been learning the L2 for 8 months and participants in our study had a similar amount of instruction on average (though a broader range from only a few months to approximately 16 months). A different possibility is that participants in that study were not sensitive to determiner number agreement because this feature is not phonologically realized in…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

“…It is also interesting to note once again the dissociation between ERP and behavioral measures (although a d' measure may have been more informative than pure accuracy scores because L2 learners tend to have response biases): above-chance performance is not accompanied by implicit sensitivity as was also the case in the experiment. In a different study, Osterhout, McLaughlin, Pitkanen, Frenck-Mestre, and Molinaro (2006) found that native English speakers learning French showed a P600 in response to verbalperson agreement violations after four months of instruction but no sensitivity to noun phrase (NP) number agreement violations even after eight months of instruction. These results were interpreted in terms of cross-language similarity: although performed differently in the two languages, verbal-person agreement constitutes a feature of participants' L1 whereas NP number agreement does not and therefore takes longer to be incorporated into their online processing system.…”

Section: The Role Of Cross-language Similaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Implicit and Explicit Second-Language Processing: The Role of Cross-Language Similarity

Tolentino¹

2007

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…Tu adores/*adorez le français.). Osterhout et al (2006) observed an interesting difference between native speakers and beginning L2 learners of French. Whereas native speakers of French displayed a P600 that reflects detection of a rule violation when confronted with an incorrect verb form, beginning L2 learners of French reacted with a N400 component.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition

Penke

2009

Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his article, Meisel targets one of the central questions in the research on second language (L2) acquisition: why is it that the acquisition of a second language differs from first language (L1) acquisition when this second language acquisition takes place after a certain critical age? Meisel sets out to answer this question by referring to maturational changes in the developing brain that affect both, UG and the processing mechanisms necessary for acquiring a grammar on the basis of input data. In this comment, I will build up on Meisel's suggestion that a relationship between developmental neuroscience and the study of language acquisition should be established. Specifically, I want to suggest that the growing spezialisation of the brain towards L1 during L1 acquisition is the central factor that causes problems in L2 acquisition.To attribute the differences between second and first language acquisition to differences in the availability of UG to language learners is an obvious move in the quest to explain L1 and L2 divergences. But what is UG? In fact, the answers to this question can be quite diverse (cf. e.g. Hauser et al. 2002, Wunderlich 2007.According to the framework of Principles and Parameters (Chomsky 1981), UG consists of a set of principles universal to all languages. Some of these principles, so-called parameters, allow for a choice between limited options Ϫ ideally two. The variation between the languages of the world is restricted to the different settings languages can choose with respect to these parameters. During language acquisition parameters have to be fixed to the values expressed in the language acquired. By doing so, the child develops an I-language, an individual, internal grammatical representation of the language s/he acquires (IG L1). This Ilanguage contains the universally valid principles and the fixed parameters valid for the specific language that is acquired. Hence, during language acquisition, UG is replaced by an internal grammar IG L1 which guides language performance and is accessed when an individual produces, comprehends, or judges the grammaticality of speech utterances.

show abstract

Novice Learners, Longitudinal Designs, and Event‐Related Potentials: A Means for Exploring the Neurocognition of Second Language Processing

Cited by 225 publications

References 53 publications

Plasticity of grammatical recursion in German learners of Dutch

Plasticity of grammatical recursion in German learners of Dutch

The Relationship Between Implicit and Explicit Second-Language Processing: The Role of Cross-Language Similarity

Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About