Within- and between-language competition in adult second language learners: implications for language proficiency

Abstract

Second language (L2) learners must not only acquire L2 knowledge (i.e. vocabulary and grammar), but they must also rapidly access this knowledge. In monolinguals, efficient spoken word recognition is accomplished via lexical competition, by which listeners activate a range of candidates that compete for recognition as the signal unfolds. We examined this in adult L2 learners, investigating lexical competition both amongst words of the L2, and between L2 and native language (L1) words. Adult L2 learners (N=33) in their third semester of college Spanish completed a cross-linguistic Visual World Paradigm task to assess lexical activation, along with proficiency assessment (LexTALE-Esp). L2 learners showed typical incremental processing activating both within-L2 and cross-linguistic competitors, similar to fluent bilinguals. Proficiency correlated with both the speed of activating the target (which prior work links to the developmental progression in L1) and the degree to which competition ultimately resolves (linked to robustness of the lexicon).

Lexical recognition processes in L2-dominant bilingualism

“…While the presence of onset competition in both languages is in line with previous findings (e.g., L1: Allopenna et al, 1998;McQueen and Huettig, 2012;Brouwer and Bradlow, 2016;L2: Mercier et al, 2014;Sarrett et al, 2021), the lack of rhyme competition in the L1 is surprising, as it contrasts with the rhyme-competitor effects that have repeatedly been reported for L1 listeners (including by all the above-cited L1 studies). Before interpreting this finding, however, we must examine two factors that may, at first glance, be assumed to have played a role in these contrastive findings.…”

“…As expected, onset competition occurred in both of the emigrants' languages. Such competition is typically observed both in L1 listeners (e.g., Allopenna et al, 1998;Ben-David et al, 2011;McQueen and Huettig, 2012;Brouwer and Bradlow, 2016) and in L2 listeners (e.g., Mercier et al, 2014;Sarrett et al, 2021), and corresponds to the predictions of all models of spokenword recognition (e.g., Cohort: Marslen-Wilson and Welsh, 1978;TRACE: McClelland and Elman, 1986;Shortlist: Norris, 1994;Shortlist B: Norris and McQueen, 2008). This finding suggests that the bilingual listeners were processing speech efficiently in both languages.…”

The Slow Development of Real-Time Processing: Spoken-Word Recognition as a Crucible for New Thinking About Language Acquisition and Language Disorders

“…Second-language acquisition may present similar challenges, as learners must recognize words with poor representations and manage competition from two lexica. Diagnostics of activation rate and resolution can reveal whether poor performance is due to a lack of practice or difficulties managing competition (Sarrett et al, in 2022).…”

Analysing data from the psycholinguistic visual-world paradigm: Comparison of different analysis methods

“…We think one possibility is that the number of observations per condition per participant was too small for the curves from the empirical data to be smooth. Ito et al ( 2018b ) used 16 critical trials (with four observations per condition per participant), whereas the number of critical trials in studies that successfully used the BDOTS is much larger (336 trials in McMurray et al, 2019 ; 480 trials in Sarrett et al, 2022 ; 384 trials in Hendrickson et al, 2021 ; 216 trials in Kapnoula & Samuel, 2019 ). In principle, we do not need to use a four-parameter logistic or double-Gaussian function, and any curve-fitting function can be used for the BDOTS (e.g., polynomials we used for the GCA).…”