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

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...

Across Languages, Space, and Time

“…This would seem to indicate that both lower and higher proficiency as well as early and late AoA participants are sensitive to morphosyntactic features unique to the L2. However, the findings from Tolentino and Tokowicz (2010) suggest that this may not always be the case, as indicated by the lack of a P600 effect in response to unique L2 features in that study. Furthermore, additional counterevidence comes from Chen et al (2007), a study in which—unlike native English speakers—L1 Mandarin speakers failed to show a P600 in response to number agreement violations in L2 English (e.g., * The price of the cars were too high ; * The price of the car were too high ).…”

“…These effects of cross-language similarity were obtained despite varying AoAs and L2 proficiency levels. One exception is the presence of a P600 effect in response to dissimilar constructions—although smaller than that for similar constructions—found by Tolentino and Tokowicz (2010). It is possible that the presence of accuracy feedback and the use of two types of number violations, which were distinct features of this study, resulted in a differential increase in cue strength associated with determiner number agreement.…”

“…In a similar study, Tolentino and Tokowicz (2010) also reported a P600 effect in response to violations of crosslinguistically similar constructions (demonstrative determiner-number agreement; e.g., * Este niños están jugando “*This boys are playing”) in a comparable participant population, but, in contrast to Tokowicz and MacWhinney (2005), they did not observe a P600 effect during the processing of unique constructions (grammatical gender agreement). Instead, a P600 effect was obtained for dissimilar constructions (definite determiner number agreement).…”

“…The LAN is a slightly later left-hemisphere anterior negative-going wave with a latency of approximately 300–500 ms; its amplitude increases in response to (morpho)syntactic violations such as errors in subject-verb agreement (e.g., Ojima, Nakata, & Kakigi, 2005; Rossi, Gugler, Friederici, & Hahne, 2006). Although both the ELAN and the LAN have been observed during language processing in native speakers (e.g., Hahne, 2001; Hahne & Friederici; Ojima et al; Rossi et al), it is often the case that the ELAN is not found (e.g., Allen, Badecker, & Osterhout, 2003; Frenck-Mestre, Osterhout, & McLaughlin, 2008; Kim & Osterhout, 2005; Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2010). These two components are observed even less often in L2 speakers (Ojima et al; Rossi et al).…”

“…In sum, for (morpho)syntactic features that are similar in the L1 and L2, results from these ERP studies are largely consistent and in accordance with predictions of positive transfer made by the UCM. Thus, all of the studies that examined the processing of shared morphosyntactic features between the L1 and L2 found that participants exhibited physiological markers of sensitivity to features as varied as regular verb inflection (De Diego Balaguer et al, 2005), violations of phrase structure (Kotz et al, 2008), verbal domain dependencies (Sabourin & Stowe, 2008), aspect marking (Tokowicz & MacWhinney, 2005), and determiner number agreement (Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2010). In contrast, morphosyntactic features that differed in their implementation across languages were generally associated with differences in neural signatures during L2 and L1 processing (or compared with native speakers) or sometimes failed to elicit ERP markers of sensitivity in bilinguals.…”